Blind Following of Madhabs

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

assalamu alaikum

I was surprised to know that some people did not know that much of the hostility that many people feel towards those who call themselves salafiyah comes from there call for the abolishment of the madhhabs [although not all these people are actually calling for this, its hard to pinpoint the exact demographics of this but it was strongest among those who lived in western countries and the indo/pak sub continent] the quotes in points 4, 5 and 6 are very clear on this. So i decided to post this [again] as a way of looking at the history of this call to abandon the madhhabs. Please note that rashid rida is essentially the founder of the Quran only movement [i.e no sunnah just the Quran, a movement rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] has said would come towards the end of time] and has some very heretical views that are borderline Kufr [essentially referring to his claim of being a messenger by defanition of the word]. Also please note that the Saudi Government has publicly admitted to teaching the wrong things and was in the process of correcting there past mistakes or that is how it was reported in the news so im not certain what teachings they are actually referring to but essentially they where referring to the extremism they helped spread, Sh. Albani has also acknowledged that he has made many mistakes in the past so this work does have to be taken in that context.

Blind Following of Madhabs
taken from the work Al-Albaani Unveiled
with some editing.

 Recently, I came across a book entitled: Blind Following of 
Madhhabs, by one of the late "Shaykh's" of the "Salafiyya", Muhammad Sultaan 
al-Ma'soomee al-Khajnadee; edited by one of al-Albani's foremost students 
(Saleem al-Hilaalee). In the above named book, al-Khajnadee tried his 
best to refute Taqleed, but in reality he failed quite miserably in 
his refutation of what he calls "Blind Following!" After reading this book of 
garbled interpretations, slanders, and even lies, I came to the conclusion that 
al-Khajnadee seemed to have been a confused and contradicting personality! Now, 
let me elaborate my claim by quoting and commenting on just a few selected pages 
from the actual book. 
   It seems that the translation of the whole book was incomplete, 
since the editor, Abu Usaamah Saleem al-Hilaalee said on pg. iii, "I also 
noticed some places containing that which was superfluous, so I left it 
out." I wonder what these 'superfluous' statements were? 
   On page ix of the above named book, it was written that 
al-Khajnadee met, 
"Shaykh Muhammad Rasheed Ridaa. He helped with al-Manaar magazine 
  (this was edited by the last named person), and bought all of its back issues 
  and the works of Shaykh Muhammad Abdah and likewise what had been printed from 
  the works of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn ul-Qayyim 
  al-Jawziyyah."From this last quote, those of us who have heard and 
read what the people of knowledge have said about the above named Shaykh's, will 
realize straight away that all four of them had corrupt Aqeedah on 
certain controversial points, like the attributes of Allah Subhana wa Ta'ala, as 
well as being famous for erring on many legal points of the Shari'ah! 

   It is a well known fact that Muhammad Rashid Rida (d. 
1935) and his teacher Muhammad Abduh (he was the Mufti of Egypt in his 
day, d. 1905) were both Freemasons, who strove to 
reinterpret the Shari'ah with their own whims and desires by claiming to 
"reform" Islam from "impurities", and this led to their call for the abandonment 
of Taqleed; hence the need for the abolishment of the four schools of Fiqh. 
These two enemies of Islam strove hard in their Freemasonic plot to "reform" 
Islam, but in reality they fought against Islam from within; this was realized 
by many scholars with in their day as well as after them by examining their 
"Fatwa's" and speeches. Hence, many a man of knowledge (e.g. Shaykh Muhammad 
Bakhit al-Muti'i - the grand Mufti of Egypt and one of the leading Hanafi 
scholars of his time, d. 1354/1935; Rahimahullah) exposed them for what they 
were, as well as warning the sincere believers to be on their guard from their 
"sweet poison" (refer to The Evolution of Fiqh, pg. 114, by A.A. Bilal Philips). 
Thus, it is not hard to realise that al-Khajnadee himself may have been strongly 
influenced by the above named Freemasons, after imbibing 'knowledge' from their 
sweet poisoned chalice! 
1.   Saleem al-Hilaalee said on page 
13, "For example, the Maalikees leave their arms at their side, during the 
Salaah and read Qunoot in Fajr, whereas we find Maalik-rahimahullaah-quotes in 
al-Muwatta; "Chapter: placing the two hands; one upon the other in Prayer... But 
the later Maalikees use as evidence that Maalik used to pray with his hands 
hanging at his side, this is ignorance with regard to the madhhab which they 
follow. Since Ja'far ibn Sulaymaan, the governor of al-Madeenah lashed the Imaam 
in the year 146H and stretched out his arms until his hands became dislocated 
and so he was not able to place his hands one over the other in Prayer...." 

The above statement by al-Hilaalee claimed that those who follow the Maliki 
Madhhab only left their hands unfolded in Salah, since Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) 
had to leave his arms unfolded after being lashed!! He also claims that this is 
"ignorance with regard to the madhhab which they follow." But in reality, it is 
he who has fallen into the abyss of ignorance on this issue by 'blind' 
supposition! Although Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) related two Hadiths supporting 
the folding of the right hand on the left in Salah in his al-Muwatta, this does 
not mean that Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) himself always folded his hands in 
Salah. As you may have read in the section on "The Placing of Hands in Prayer", 
I quoted the most authoritative position of the Maliki madhhab, as well as what 
Imam Malik himself said about placing the hands in Salah. Here is the quote 
again for good measure; and for the displacement of ignorant claims: "In al- 
Mudawwanah (vol. 1, pg. 75-76), Imam Malik has been recorded to have said, 
'Putting the right hand on the left in salah, I have no knowledge of it in the 
compulsory (Fard) prayer, it is thus disliked (Makrooh). But in the 
supererogatory (Nafl) prayer their is no harm (in folding the hands), it is left 
to the individual to decide.' Please ask yourselves who is ignorant, al-Hilaalee 
or the Maliki scholars?! 
2.  Al-Khajnadee claimed on page 47, that 
the book al-Mudawwanah was by Imam Malik! In fact, as I have said 
on more than one occasion previously, al-Mudawwanah is the compilation of 
Qadi Sahnoon! It is strange how al-Hilaalee did not correct 
al-Khajnadee in his editorial footnotes; do they want us to accept their claims 
blindly? 
3.   On page 22, al-Khajnadee quoted 
the well known Hadith from Irbaad ibn Saariyah (Allah be pleased with him) where 
the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) ordered us to, "Keep to my Sunnah and 
the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Khulafaa, cling to that with your 
teeth." Thus it is incumbent to cling to the rightly guided Khulafaa; 
and they are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them 
all). But, as is the habit of men of his ilk, he contradicts himself by saying 
on the very next page: "Neither, Imaam Abu Haneefah or Maalik said, 'Keep to 
my saying' or 'Follow my madhhab', not even Abu Bakr or 'Umar-radiallaahu'anhum- 
rather they all forbade that." Thus, is he saying that we should not keep 
to the sayings of Abu Bakr or Umar (Allah be pleased with them) even though it 
is a command of the Prophet (Peace be upon him)? 
   In fact al-Albani himself quoted two statements in Sifah 
Salah-an- Nabee, from Imams Abu Hanifah and Malik (Allah's mercy be upon 
them) which permitted Taqleed of their views, so long as they agreed with the 
Qur'an and Sunnah! On page ix Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahimahullah) has been quoted as 
saying, "When I say something contradicting the Book of Allah the Exalted or 
what is narrated from the Messenger (peace be upon him), then ignore my saying." 
Does this not mean that if any of Imam Abu Hanifah's Fatwa's does not contradict 
the Qur'an and the Sunnah, may be taken by way of Taqleed; after the research 
scholars within the Hanafi school had shown that it had a basis? 
   Similarly, Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) was quoted by al-Albani to 
have said (see 'Sifah', pg. x): "Truly I am only a mortal: I make mistakes 
(sometimes) and I am correct (sometimes). Therefore, look into my opinions: all 
that agrees with the Sunnah, accept it; and all that does not agree with the 
Book and the Sunnah, ignore it." Again, Imam Malik has given us the right to 
take his opinions, so long as they agree with the Qur'an and Sunnah; Is this not 
in favour of Taqleed after the verifying scholars of the Maliki Madhhab proved 
which verdicts of Imam Malik were in harmony with the Shari'ah? 
   Also, al-Albani quoted Imam al-Shafi'i (see 'Sifah', pg. xi) as 
saying; "If you find in my writings something different to the Sunnah of the 
Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), then speak on the basis of 
the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and leave what I have 
said." Hence, whatever contradicts the authentic Sunnah in Imam al-Shafi'i's 
writings was carefully examined by the research scholars within the Shafi'i 
Madhhab. This means that whatever did not contradict the Sunnah in Shafi'i's 
writings may be taken by way of Taqleed; does it not? 
4.   On page 33, al-Khajnadee said, 
"Taqleed in the Sharee'ah is referring back to someone's saying for which 
there is no proof and that is prohibited in the Sharee'ah. Ittibaa is that for 
which the proof is established. Taqleed in Allah's deen is not correct and 
ittiba is binding." 
This statement shows that al-Khajnadee did not even know what the correct 
definition of Taqleed was! He has definitely confused the meanings of the 
two words Taqleed and Ittiba. As I had said at the beginning of 
this section, Taqleed is the acceptance of a Mujtahids fatwa for which the proof 
has been established! How could it ever be said that Taqleed is the referring 
back to a "saying for which there is no proof?" Surely, this is not Taqleed but 
the following of mere opinion. What al-Khajnadee said about Ittiba is in reality 
the true extent of Taqleed! So, please beware of this cunning deception my dear 
brothers and sisters. 
5.   On page 37, al-Khajnadee made a 
blatantly false statement by saying nonsensically, "If you look into the 
matter carefully it will be clear to you that these madhhabs were spread, 
promoted and made attractive by the enemies of Islam in order to split the 
Muslims and cause discord amongst them. Or they were started by the ignorant in 
conformity with the Jews and Christians and in imitation of them, as they do in 
many matters." 
By Allah, this is a grave calumniation, a highly nefarious aspersion and a 
blatant misrepresentation of historical facts! Only one who lacks a speck of 
analytical deduction and investigation into historical facts could say such a 
crass thing! In reality, these madhhabs were spread by the founders of these 
very schools, and especially by those amongst their disciples, and then those 
who succeeded them.... So that eventually a full chain of transmission (Isnad) 
was built up and recorded by the succeeding scholars in their works, just as in 
the science of Hadith. Even today, some scholars have an unbroken chain going 
back to the scholars of Hadith and Fiqh of the first generations of Islam! 
   The great scholar of Islam, Qadi Iyad (d. 544/1149 
Rahimahullah), has quite beautifully and eloquently explained how the Madhhabs 
arose, and why one should make Taqleed of them. He said: "This Ijtihad and the 
handing down of rules and Shari'ah, on the basis of it-there are very few, very 
few who have the capacity. Indeed they are fewer than the few after the first 
generation (of Muslims), the upright Salihun, and the first three praiseworthy 
generations. Now since this is the nature of the matter, any human being 
burdened with the moral responsibility to obey Allah, but not having attained 
the status of being able to know the Shari'ah, on his own, is necessarily 
required to get that knowledge from someone else. 
   He must take the knowledge of every act of worship he has been 
commanded to do-every application of the Shari'ah that has been made responsible 
for him to perform directly, from that man who can give it to him straight from 
the source and who will make him know exactly what to do. That man must be the 
staff by which he stands in his own transmission to others, in the knowledge he 
acquires, and in the Shari'ah parameters by which he lives. This is Taqleed. And 
this is precisely the position of the ordinary people, indeed the vast majority 
of all people. Since this is the case, what is required of you is that in all 
such matters, you do Taqleed of the 'alim in whom you have complete trust. If 
such Ulama are many, then follow that one who is most knowledgeable. This is the 
portion of Ijtihad which falls to the lot of the Muqallid with regard to his 
deen. And it is not fitting that the Muqallid should abandon the most 
knowledgeable (Mujtahidun) in favour of someone else, even though that other 
person is also busy with knowledge. The Muqallid must therefore ask at that time 
about those things which he does not know until he has knowledge of them, just 
as Allah, Glory be to Him, has said, 'Then ask the people of Remembrance if 
you do not know.' (Holy Qur'an 16:43 and 21:7) 
   And the one upon whom we ask Allah's blessings and peace 
commanded the Khalifs after him and his Companions be emulated. The one upon 
whom we ask blessings and peace also sent his Companions out among the people to 
give them understanding in the deen, to teach them what had been made incumbent 
on them, and Allah urged on the entirety of them to go out, 'From every group 
among you let there be a group who will develop understanding of the deen and 
who will give warning to their people when they return to them.' 
   Now since this matter is something necessary, and there is no 
way around it, and since they who most deserve to be followed by the uniformed 
ordinary man, the beginner, who has taken it on himself to worship, or the 
student seeking right guidance and knowledge of Fiqh in the deen of Allah, and 
those who have the greatest right to be followed are the Fuqaha of the Sahaba of 
Rasulullah (Peace be upon him), they are those who took their knowledge directly 
from him, who knew the circumstances of the Revelation, of the commands and 
prohibitions, the various prophecies, of the different aspects of the Shari'ah, 
the exact pronunciation of the Prophet's words, may Allah bless him and give him 
peace, who themselves witnessed the accompanying circumstances of these ayats, 
who spoke to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace, directly, 
about most of it, who asked him about it despite the extensive knowledge from 
the Prophet (Peace be upon him) which they themselves already had, and their 
knowledge of the meanings of Arabic speech, the illumination of their hearts, 
and the openness and receptivity of their hearts, such that they were, without 
the least contention, the most knowledgeable of Imams, and they were those of 
the Imams most worthy of being followed by Taqleed. 
   Nevertheless, they only spoke about a few of the problematic 
events that happened among them, and large numbers of answers to Shari'ah 
questions did not branch out from them in detail. They did not speak about the 
Shari'ah, except with regard to the basic teachings, and certain things that 
actually happened. Most of their pre-occupation was with the putting into 
practise of what they knew and the active defence of the entire deen, the laying 
down of the firm foundation of the Shari'ah of the Muslims. There was among them 
a degree of difference of opinion in some of the things which they discussed 
which could keep the Muqallid in a perpetual state of confusion, and require of 
him the kind of reflection and review for which he is not yet prepared. And 
indeed the full elaboration of questions, resolving of problems, and setting out 
the discussions, only came about in response to those matters, the appearance of 
which had been anticipated after the Sahaba were gone. 
   Consequently, the Tabi'in, the Followers (like Imam's Abu 
Hanifah, an-Nakhai, Hammad, al-Zuhri, Hasan al-Basri, Sha'bi...), came and 
reflected on the differences of opinions of the Companions, and built on the 
foundations which they had laid down. Then after them came the Ulama from among 
the Followers of the Followers (like Imam's Malik, Shafi'i, Ibn Hanbal, Dawood 
al-Zahiri...). By that time, the occurrences which had happened already became 
many and the problematic events had already occurred, while Fatwas regarding all 
of this had branched out into many details. Therefore they gathered together the 
opinion of them all, and they committed their Fiqh to memory. 
   They sought out differences of opinion of the earlier 
generations as well as their areas of agreement, but they were cautious about 
the matter of this disagreement spreading and of its getting out of control. 
Therefore they did Ijtihad regarding all these parts of the Sunnah, and of the 
precise articulation of fundamental principles. They asked questions and they 
got answers. They built up the foundations of the basic precepts and they made 
accessible the basic principles. Upon them were delineated the solutions to 
problems and events and they were put down in writing for the people, and 
organised. Each of them worked on the basis of the inspiration he was given and 
the accomplishment to which Allah had guided them. So they became the ultimate 
in the science of Usool and of the specific details of the Shari'ah in the 
matters of agreement and disagreement. And on the basis of this knowledge which 
had come to them, they made Qiyas, analogy, according to the indications, and 
the similarities that they had got. May Allah be pleased with all of them and 
may He give them the full extent of the reward of their Ijtihad. 
   Therefore it is an individual obligation that falls on the 
ordinary Muqallid and the student of knowledge in his beginning stages, to take 
recourse in his Taqleed to these great men, or the explicit texts regarding the 
problems and events that befall him. Recourse must be had to them regarding all 
of these matters which are problematic because of the fact that they were 
immersed in knowledge of the Shari'ah and it literally revolved around them. 
They alone have precise understanding of the schools, of who had gone before, 
and the earlier generations, and that knowledge is enough for all who have come 
after them in later generations. Nevertheless, it is simply not possible that 
all of these earlier Fuqaha can be simultaneous objects of Taqleed regarding the 
most difficult problems and the majority of questions, because of their 
differences among themselves caused by conflicting opinions about the 
fundamental principles upon which they built. Moreover, it is not valid for the 
Muqallid to do Taqleed of any among them merely on the basis of personal whim, 
or chance that he has come upon a decision on the basis of what he happened to 
find the people of his region doing, or his family doing (and this is quite 
common today; is it not?) 
   Again therefore, the portion of Ijtihad that falls to his lot in 
this case, is that he seek to discover by reflection which of them was the most 
knowledgeable, and come to know which of them is most worthy of being an object 
of Taqleed from among all of them, so that in his practise and his Fatwas, the 
ordinary man can trust him and rely on him and trust that in his acts of 
worship, he had taken on himself only what the Mujtahid had and discerned as 
correct. The ordinary man therefore must give to the most knowledgeable 
(scholars) among the adherents to the schools of these earlier Fuqaha, the 
status which by right, he deserves. It is not permissible for him that he go 
beyond them in his seeking of Fatwas to one who does not follow the opinion of 
his school (NB-There are certain conditions which need to be fulfilled before 
one can take opinions from other schools, these principles have been explained 
by scholars like Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami). For as some of the 
Shaykhs have said, 'The Imam is with regard to one who adheres to his school, to 
his way, like the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace, is with 
regard to his Ummah.' It is not permissible for him to go against his Imam 
(unless one has become a Mujtahid within the school or in specific issues). This 
has been expressed quite correctly, and the correct way will become clear to 
those who have insight, and eyes with which to see, on the basis of what we have 
elaborated and the stipulations we have laid down." (quoted from Root Islamic 
Education, pp. 82-7, by Shaykh Abdalqadir al-Murabit ). 
   So please ask yourselves, "Were these great scholars the enemies 
of Islam (Allah forbid), who imitated the ways of corrupt Christians and Jews?" 
I say, never could these madhhabs have ever existed if the well known scholars 
did not spread them; is this not the basic and fundamental truth? 
   One of the most well known scholars of Hadith in our time, 
Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arnaoot (b. 1928 in Albania, presently residing in Amman, 
Jordan), said with regard to Taqleed and the founders of the madhhabs: 
They are explainers, not popes; but in each of their schools there 
  afterwards followed a hundred or more scholars who refined and added to their 
  work, men whose stature in Islamic knowledge was like mountains, any one of 
  whom could put fifteen of the scholars available today in his 
pocket."
6.   Another 
imbecilic statement was made by al-Khajnadee on page 56, where he said, 
"They have taken a path opposite to that of the people of knowledge, their 
late-comers have inverted the way of the Salaf and turned the foundations of the 
Deen upside down. So they declare the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger 
(Peace be upon him), the sayings of his Khulafaa and the rest of the 
Companions-radiallaahu 'anhum-to be false." 
Again, he made a wicked declaration by claiming that the followers of these 
madhhabs declared the, "Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be 
upon him), the sayings of his Khulafaa and the rest of the Companions-radiallahu 
'anhum-TO BE FALSE." I ask you which scholar within the four madhhabs, let alone 
the 'blind followers' declared it "To be false?" Would it not be true, that if 
one declared the above sources to be "false" he or she may automatically go out 
of the fold of Islam (especially the first two sources), let alone be a follower 
of a Madhhab (and only Allah knows best)? How could the 'blind followers' 
declare something to be false, when the great scholars have said that it is 
impermissible to take the "Ijtihad" of non-Mujtahid's as documentary proof? 
May Allah guide the people who believe in what al-Khajnadee proclaimed! 
   There are many other vile statements made by al-Khajnadee 
in his above named book, but this is not the time and place to outline them in 
detail; rather a well grounded scholar could easily refute his nonsensical 
slanders and lies by way of logical proofs from the sources of the Shari'ah. 
This book of his was meant to be "sound" advice for some prospective Japanese 
converts to Islam. It seems al- Khajnadee wanted his Japanese readers (not to 
mention the generality of the Muslim readership) to accept everything he said 
"blindly" and without research; thus he may not have been advising the Japanese 
questioners, but instead confusing them even more deeply by not explaining the 
meanings of many of the statements and their ramifications, let alone the 
Shari'ah terminology he had used! Besides that, he as well as his friend 
al-Albani (in his 'Sifah Salah an-Nabee'), failed to tell their readers that 
nearly every scholar they quoted from were the adherents of one of the four 
existing schools! This is a great trick of the most knowledgeable of "Salafi" 
scholars; they seem to deceive themselves as well as their readers when it comes 
to proclaiming this undeniable fact! 
   Rather, al-Khajnadee and al-Albani should have tried to disprove 
the evidences used by the scholars within the Madhhabs (from the Qur'an, Sunnah 
and even the Ijma), which documents and allows Taqleed to all non-Mujtahids! The 
following is a list of some of the scholars quoted by al-Albani and al-Khajnadee 
in their books, and the Madhhab they were in: 
THE HANAFI SCHOLARS 
Imam Ibn Abidin (d. 1252/1836; al-A'lam, 6.42 [viii,15,22]), Hafiz Ibn 
al-Humam (d. 861/1457; al-A'lam, 6.255 [viii,22,32]), Imam Ibn al-Shahnah 
al-Kabeer [viii], Imam Zufar (d. 158 AH [viii]), Imam Abu Yusoof (d. 182/798; 
al-A'lam, 8.193 [viii,14]), Imam Muhammad al- Shaybani (d. 189/804; al-A'lam, 
6.80 [ix,14]), Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH, [5]), Imam ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi 
[17], Imam ibn Nujaim al- Misri (d. 970 AH [34]), Shaykh Ali al-Qari (d. 
1014/1606; al-A'lam, 5.12 [35]), Shaykh Abd al-Haqq Dehlawi (d. 1052 AH [36]), 
Allamah Abdal Hayy al-Lucknawi (d. 1304 AH; also known as Abul Hasanat [ix]), 
Shaykh Abul Hasan as-Sindee al-Hanafi [5], Shaykh Aafiyyah ibn Yazeed [viii]. 
THE MALIKI SCHOLARS 
Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 463/1071; al-A'lam, 8.240 [x,5]), Imam Ibn Wahb (d. 
197/812 [x]), Imam Abdullah ibn Abee Zaid al-Qairwanee al-Maliki (d. 389 AH 
[16]). 
THE SHAFI'I SCHOLARS 
Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066; al-A'lam, 1.116 [xi,6]), Shaykh Abu Yusoof 
al-Buweeti [xii], Shaykh Abul Qasim ad-Daariki [xii], Hafiz Ibn as-Salah (d. 
643/1245; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 8.326 [xii]), Imam Taqi ad-Deen al-Subki (d. 
756/1355; al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya, 114 [xii,14]), Imam Abu Nu'aym (d. 430/1038; 
Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 4.18 [xii,52]), Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256/870; Tabaqat 
al-Shafi'iya, 2.212-14 [6]), Imam Muslim (d. 261/875; Siyar a'lam al-nubala, 
12.557-61 [6]), Imam Abu Dawood (d. 275/889; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 2.293 
[xiii,14]), Imam Nisai (d. 309/915; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 3.14-16 [6]), Imam 
Tirmidhi (d. 279/892; Siyar a'lam, 13.270-73 [6]), Imam ibn Majah (d. 209/824; 
al- A'lam, 7.144 [6]), Imam al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505; al-A'lam, 3.301-2 [5]), 
Hafiz Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311/924; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 3.109 [16]), Imam 
ash-Sha'rani (d. 973/1565; al-A'lam, 4.180-1 [viii,35]), Imam Hakim (d. 
405/1014; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 4.155 [xi,39]), Imam ibn Asakir (d. 571 AH 
[xi]), Hafiz Khateeb al-Baghdadi (d. 463/1072; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 4.29 
[xi,52]), Hafiz al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1348; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 9.100 [18]), 
Hafiz al-Iraqi (d. 806/1404; al-A'lam, 3.344 [18]), Imam al-Tabarani (d. 
360/971; Siyar a'lam, 16.119-23 [18]), Imam al-Izz ibn Abdas Salam (d. 660/1262; 
al-A'lam, 4.21 [27]), Imam ibn Hibban (d. 354/965; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 3.131 
[39]), Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852/1449; al-A'lam, 1.178 [39]), Hafiz 
al- Haythami (d. 807/1405; al-A'lam, 4.266 [40]), Imam al-Haramayn (d. 478/1085; 
Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 5.165 [41]), Imam Abul Qasim al- Qushayri (d. 465/1072; 
Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya, 5.153 [50]), Imam al-Razi (d. 606/1210; Tabaqat 
al-Shafi'iya, 8.81-89 [59]), Imam al-Baghawi (d. 510/1117; al-A'lam, 2.259 
[59]), Imam Abu Shamah (d. 665 AH [78]), Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676/1277; al-A'lam, 
8.149 [xi,15]). 
THE HANBALI SCHOLARS 
Hafiz ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328; al-A'lam, 1.144 [30]), Hafiz ibn al-Qayyim 
al-Jawziyyah (d. 751/1350; Siyar a'lam, 7.202 [xiii,42]), Hafiz ibn al-Jawzi (d. 
508/1114; al-A'lam, 3.316 [xii,53]), Hafiz ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d. 795/1393, 
[xiv]). 
NB- The contents in the brackets (after the names of the above scholars), 
stand for the following abbreviations:- 
(i) 'd.'- the year of the scholars death, usually in Hijri and Christian 
dates. 
(ii) 'al-A'lam'- This is a well known biographical dictionary by Khayr 
al-Deen al-Zirikly (see bibliography for full details). 
(iii) 'Tabaqat al-Shafi'iya'- This is a very well known dictionary listing 
all the famous Shafi'i scholars uptill the death of its author-Imam Taj al-Deen 
al-Subki (rahimahullah). 
(iv) 'Siyar a'lam al-nubala'- This is a biographical dictionary by the famous 
scholar of Hadith-al-Hafiz Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Dhahabi (rahimahullah). 
(v) 'al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya'- This is a well known collection by the great 
scholar of Islam-Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (rahimahullah). 
(vi) Whatever appears in square brackets- [ ], refers to the page number in 
al-Albani's 'Sifah Salah an-Nabee' (only in roman numerals) and al-Khajnadee's 
'Blind Following of Madhhabs.' 
   So now my dear reader, you should be asking yourselves the 
simple question: "Why did the above named scholars adhere to one of the four 
schools, but today people like al-Albani etc; are calling for the abandonment of 
the Taqleed of the four schools?" Even two of the most prominent Imams of the 
neo-"Salafiyya", Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim were Hanbali in Fiqh (but their 
Aqeedah has been questioned by many scholars). One may have also noticed that 
not one of the 6 main Imams of Hadith (al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, 
an-Nisai and Ibn Majah) were out of the four schools; and this fact may astonish 
the so called "Salafiyya" who claim to be on the path of the scholars of Hadith! 
If this fact seems unconvincing to the lay reader, then one should read their 
biographies in the above named dictionaries, or their actual books! Thus, 
without even writing a refutation against the likes of al-Albani and 
al-Khajnadee, the above named scholars (not to mention thousands of other 
scholars) stand as a witness against their false claims on the Islamic concept 
of Taqleed. The "Salafiyya" claim to be on the path of the scholars of Hadith; 
but I ask you, who were the scholars of Hadith? The answer to this question may 
be found in their biographies; but just for the record, one should never forget 
that the vast majority of the scholars of Hadith were usually in one of the four 
schools of Fiqh after their founding; and this may be called the way of the 
traditional and classical scholars, indifference to the modern day "Salafiyya". 
I ask you now, what is there to stop one from adhering to one of the four 
schools, when so many great scholars did so? 
   Al-Albani and many of the other "Salafiyya" (modern-day 
Khawarij) "Shaykhs" try to refute Taqleed by quoting statements coming directly 
from the four Imams themselves, which apparently 'forbid' Taqleed of their 
Fatwa's! In fact the scholars have explained each one of these apparently 
Taqleed forbidding statements quite explicitly. The bottom line of these 
statements has lead the scholars to conclude, that these statements refer to the 
forbiddance of one Mujtahid taking the Ijtihad of another Mujtahid without 
knowing his documentary evidence (refer to the previous pages for some 
statements on this issue); but not the forbiddance of non-Mujtahids taking the 
Ijtihads of the Mujtahids, and this is precisely Taqleed of the allowable type. 
If Allah wills, the true meanings of these statements may be collated and 
annotated by way of reference to the classical scholars of Islam; instead of 
receiving garbled and incontextual quotations from the four Mujtahids (Allah's 
mercy be upon them) by the likes of al-Albani. 

Edited by rami - 25 June 2008 at 4:44am