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."

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."

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?

Andalus wrote: kukuruza wrote: I discovered that khateeb and director of our mosque is Albaani's student! I am sorry to hear that.

Why sorry?