Secondly, branding oneself a Wahabi, Hanafi, Sunni or Shia itself is against the essence of Islam since our identity is as a MUSLIM. NOT any of the above things.

 

Secondly, there is no place for sects in Islam. Islam is what it was as Muhammad preached, so no need for us to associate our label with the teachings of any pir, maulvi or scholar. Use thier teachings as stepping stones for hidayah, but please dont label yourself a Wahabi, Sunni etc.

 

As for whn ppl tell u tht the teachings of a certain 'sect' is wrong etc . . . the best way for u to know is simply to go to the core i.e Quran and Sunnah and Hadith. Forget abt which sect is right or wrong.

 

 Chapter 3 Verse 103- "(Believers) All hold tight to the Rope of Allah (the Quran) and do not be divided among yourselves. And remember the favor Allah has bestowed upon you: how, after your enmity, He united your hearts, so that you are now brothers through His grace�."

 

 

Chapter 30 Verse 32- "(Believers) Do not break your religion into sects, each rejoicing in its own belief."

 

Brother Rami:

 

The slogan I am repeating is 'No need to associate your self with a label other than Islam' . . . Now you may call it a sect, a madhab, a school of thought whatever. I'm just saying that to call/associate oneself as a Muslim is enough. And there is NO need for one to brand oneself a Wahabi, Sunni, Hanafi, Shaafii or whatever.

 

I *think* you are referring to the 4-School's of Thought (Hanafi etc) when u talk about Madhabs. I never said that those School's of Thought are wrong, and I never underplayed the importance of the Scholars that formed them. They are just that, schools of THOUGHT. As in, the mode with which u approach certain issues of Fiqh.

I interpret the word Madhab as Religion . . .Now I may be wrong, bcz I do not know the Arabic meaning of the word, but in my language, which shares many words with Arabic . . Madhab=Religion.

 

I know that without the 4 Imams, and thier works, we would be in deep-water right now, in terms of jurisprudence. And since ALL 4 scholars are right in thier interpretations, one may opt for the interpretations of ANY school without having the need to put a label on themselves, i.e. I am a Hanafi etc. . . You say its a different category altogether . . .but what I am asking is, why the need to label yourself with a school of thought? Does it matter what legal tradition you follow? No. Is one school of thought 'better' than the other? No. How does it effect our daily functions as a Muslim, or our faith etc? Thats all.

 

Btw, when I was talking of sects etc, I was reffering to basically the classifications we end up making ON OUR OWN. . .e.g. "I am a Hanafi, and a Sunni, and Im part of XYZ Jamaat . . oh and I'm also a muslim." My humble, personal opinion is that such choices are best kept to oneself, rather than labelled in public . . .because then it opens the floor to unneccessary rifts and petty disputes. . .  thus giving rise to sects.

 

 

 

Brother. Just to make things clear, I do NOT reject the Imams of Ijtihad . . . I believe they were a blessing for us Muslims, because they introduced Ijtihad and Fiqh to the Ummah like never before.

 

And I consider ALL 4 schools of thought to be correct in thier respective interpretations, which is why I refuse to call myself a Hanbali, Shaafi, Maaliki or otherwise.  Doing that is suggesting that I follow thier teachings, WHERE AS we follow Islam ALONE, and ONLY use the esteemed, and respected Imams as helpful guidance, so I may better pratise my deen. The Prophet said in a hadith that if you are presented with two equally halal options, opt for the easier one. Which is why a muslim can sway towards the Hanafi school of thought when presented with a fiqh issue, and opt for the Shaafi interpretation in another case, depending on which is the easier one for the individual. This is keeping the Prophet's Hadith in mind.

 

Like I said Brother, I never insisted my meaning of Madhzab was correct, infact I THINK I mentioned that I may be wrong. (However, acording to ME, its the same thing since legal code=religion=Islam. ) But no issues there. I agree with you.

 

Like I said before, and there is simply no USE whatsoever of attaching a label-other than-muslim with our name. WHAT is achieved by branding a 'label' to us? Perhaps not you Brother . . . but some Muslims tend to get so carried away with the categorization, that they start dividing into Firqas.

 

Which gives rise to Threads like these *I have heard that so-and-so madhab/sect/section are not muslims* or "Hanbalis are better than Hanafis" . . .

 

TRUE that it may represent your school of though, but again Brother . . . why the need? Is a muslim defined by what school of thought we follow? Does it aid your daily activities as a muslim? Does it effect your faith? However what it DOES do is create a confusion amongst the minds of less-aware Muslims AS WELL AS Non-Muslims , who start believeing that one HAS to be part of a certain group/sect/school of thought. It also creates the notions of divisions in Islam, and this portrays an incorrect and wrongful image. As a result, we should distance ourselves from a labelling phenomenon which gives rise to so many rifts. Something Allah asked us not to do. "..And hold on to the rope of Allah, and do not divide into sects"

 

I can only add by sharing an anecdote of a non-muslim who wished to convert, but kept taking his time. . . on inquiry replied that he did had not decided what 'type' of Islam was the right choice. . .

 

Rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] used to label his sahabah by many nicknames it was actually the custom of the arabs to do such things, Abu Bakrs name is not Abu Bakr, Imam Abu Hanifa did not have a daughter called hanifah. This establishes the general permissibility of labeling things although i personally think intellectually we have sunk very low as an Ummah to actually need a fatwah or ruling on using labels its just common sense.

With all due respect Brother, this example seems to go off on a tangent for me. Since there is nothing wrong with nicknames, and they are entirely different from labels. Since nicknames denote the closeness of a person to another. WHILST in our case labels denote beliefs, and 'brand' a person, Labelling is what sets something aside as different from the others (mainstream Islam) No need for a fatwa Brother, nobody is saying labels are haraam. . . it depends on how/why we use them.

when a person says his fiqh is hanafi its for practical reasons and to avoid confusion,

What confusion and what practical reasons? What confusion is faced by a person that refuses to attach himself to a group versus one who does? The only confusion I see will be faced by other ppl who are curious about which Imam we 'follow', and do not get an answer to thier question. Until you have an Islamic state, the problem of Jurisprudence doesnt even arise. . . and even if it does, simply solve the problem using Qur'an and Sunna and the Fiqh put forward by ur favoured scholar.

 

Sister the Uluma used to put what school of thought they followed in there last names, al Hanafi, al Shafii, al Maliki, al Hanbali you do it so people know what you believe or follow,

Again Brother, I ask. . .why do ppl 'need' to know which 'madhab' you believe or follow? APART from the fact that u are a muslim? How does that effect the way they treat you or judge you?

 

 

Having said that, I see that you feel strongly about the issue just like I do. I am willing to put the issue to rest, because my intention is not to be disrespectful or feud. I shall try and put the case to rest, unless I feel there is something I should respond to.

 

Regards,

 

 First, nowhere in the Quran or hadeeth can we find muslims being addressed as anything else than Muslims or Mu'mins. Even the term "Muhammadi" wasnt used to denote a person following the Prophet. Which Imam ever told his disciples to follow "his" teachings to be in the right path? We will find nowhere the imams telling that. Rather we see them telling muslims to " follow the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet" and to "put aside their opinions for a saheeh hadith". Were not their opinions made in the absence of hadith?

 

 

The hadith you quoted does not relate to this becouse two halal matters are not an issue at all. but when you are dealing between two rullings from different madhhabs and you cant tell the difference between them then it is Haram to pick the easiest according to the all Ulumah of all four madhhabs.

 So, are u saying that if I am faced with 2 different rulings, from 2 different madhabs, and I choose the easier/more practical one. . .then it is haram? Why? Pl clarify. I believe the Hadith is very apt to this e.g, but pl clarify.


 

why do you think we have so few traditional colleges such as al azhar

On an entirely different note, Al-Azhar has produced some great work, yet they too have fallen prey to government pressure and thier fatawa are sometimes wht the govt wishes.

 

today you think its the madhhabs in the future it will be somthing else this is part of the signs of Qiyamah

True brother. But just bcz we can forsee that, does not mean we not do anything about it. The BIGGEST threat to the Ummah today is breaking up into sects. And as muslims, it is our duty to remove any causes/elements to sects/breaking up. And I have felt, as have others, that sometimes simple 'innocent' labels such as these are what cause sub-groups to form, and divide etc etc. There can be no such thing as a 'ban' like you said I was rooting for. The solution is islamic awareness and stressing on other more islamically correct labels such as Ummah and Muslim.

This suggests that this is new, the madhhabs [legal systems] are almost as old as Islam itself and it has never been a problem in the past people see what they want to see but when you test it against reality that is when you know if something is true.

Brother, today we are faced with numerous issues on a large scale that were NEVER an issue in the past. Terrorism, sectarian violence, divides etc etc. Which is why there was no need to tackle the issue in the past, but IS an issue we need to adderess now.

There is a REAL reason why we have four madhhabs they are not just there for show sister i suggest you get to know what the reasons are this is the only way you will know why a person HAS to follow one fiqh school rather than rely on his nafs.

Brother, the reason we have 4 schools is because 4 different ppl came up with solutions to fiqh with different approaches, ALL in accordance with Quran, Sunnah and Hadith. . . the reason all 4 r accepted is because ALL FOUR are correct in thier interpretations. Which is why a person can choose to follow any of thier interpretations at any time without having to restrict him/herself to ONE. Thus eliminating the need for a label.

 

I chose not to respond to the other statements, because I will be getting repititive. . . since it all goes back to my point of preventing rifts/sects from forming infavour of an ummah and the importance of a common label, Muslim.

Brother, with all due respect, you tend to go too deep into the literal meaning of words. But even if taken literally, there is nothing 'christian' abt the term, niether did I find any such roots when I looked it up. Infact I think self-righteousness is wrong : (Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic. , insistent on one's rectitude) Da'wah and nahi-anil-munkar are duties of a muslim, I agree. But when one says that they are not being self-righteous is when they are admitting thier fallibility, and possibility that they may be wrong. Hence when I am about to call something wrong, I believe I should mention I do not mean to be self-righteous, since with my limited knowledge I cannot assuredly label ppl being wrong. Infact according to its meaning. . .No muslim should be self-righteous (or holier-than-thou), since it goes against the principles of Islam (Humility, etc)

Then you are trying to do what the sahabah could never do sister

,

Brother, not all sahabah could prevent sects, but they tried , since it was thier duty as muslims to do so. Just because they did not/could not succeed, does not resolves us of our duty to do so, in our own time. And to continue trying to rectify things that the sahabah could not do does not mean it becomes a blasphemy. By suggesting that I am trying to do something they couldnt, you seem to be implying that I am wrong, or I shouldnt dare go where the Sahabah didnt/couldnt ! (with all due respect to the sahabah)

Allah created us as different nations so we can know one another he literally says HE created differences in human kind its in our Fitrah sister.

Brother, you seem to have gone off the tangent from defending the madhab labels to now justifying sects/rifts ! Brother we NEED to be stressing the one-label rule now MORE than EVER. True, Allah created us as nations. . . I am aware of that verse. But brother, that doesnt justify sects! Can't u see what the problem with the Ummah today is??? We are every-single nationality/group before we are muslims today! This is why the USA can attack a muslim-country today and it is no longer considered an attack on muslims today, rather an attack on a 'nation' ! We have Afghanistan back-stabbing Pakistan, Kuwait backing attacks on Iraq and whatnot. Our identity as a muslim should NEVER take the backseat to our nationality. I do not consider nationalities unislamic. 

the prophet at times did not try to stop difference between people and there are clear examples of him choosing to stay silent rather than to set people right [out of wisdom].

Brother, I would appreciate if you coul pl give an e.g out of Hadith/sunnah. Because though the Prophet did choose to stay silent at times. I dont think it was ever in the face of differences. There were instances when the Prophet remained silent on occasions where sahabah had different opinions and solutions to an issue at hand, and he was waiting for Allah's wahi, or decision. Since the word 'differences' denotes quarrels or controversies. And the sahabah always followed the islamic ettiqute on conflicts, unlike today's muslims.

 

people can know the ruling of a madhhab without attaching them selfs to any imam its simply peoples choices to do so.

Thats is what the brunt of the problem is brother. That is often exactly what ppl do. Hero-worship / imam-worship is the greatest issue today. And just by saying that it only happens in Pakistan *sigh* or is not rampant. . does not make it true brother. You are perhaps forgetting that a large majority today is muslim by-name, and are uneducated with in-adequate knowledge of Islam, which is why they need to veered away frm the labelling phenomenon. . . since they are more prone to form such staunch die-hard sects. . . and gullible.

Its ironic that the ones who started this anti madhhab phenomenon chose to LABEL themselfs salafi's is that label wrong also.

Yes, any 'label' that needs to be given importance, and an identity other than 'MUSLIM' is irrelevant, unnecessary and prone to fitnah/firqa.

Which Imam ever told his disciples to follow "his" teachings to be in the right path? Muhammad Ibn Abdul wahhab,

 

Perhaps I shdnt interfere, but according to me, what I assumed Brother Saladin was reffering to by the word 'Imam' were the 4-imams, Hanbal, Hanafi etc. I dont think he was referring to all imams. I think he was saying that none of these above Imama ever asked ppl to follow them versus the other. Correct me if i am wrong brother Saladin.

 

 

 

 

So, are u saying that if I am faced with 2 different rulings, from 2 different madhabs, and I choose the easier/more practical one. . .then it is haram? Why? Pl clarify. I believe the Hadith is very apt to this e.g, but pl clarify.

Sister first of all how can two rulings exist about a single issue both say different things and both be right, the wrong ruling is under Allahs rahmah and the person who follows it wont be punished as allah has lifted responsibility from him [according to the Quran and sunnah]. The hadith you speak of is about choosing between two options that are both permissible in reality not two rulings from different madhhabs which say two different things its a completely different issue.

Imam  Nawawi was asked for a formal legal opinion on whether pursuing dispensations [the easiest rulings] in such a manner was permissible;

(Question:) "Is it permissible for someone of a particular school to follow a different school in matters that will be of benefit to him, and to seek out dispensations?"

He answered (Allah be well pleased with him), "It is not permissible to seek out dispensations [A: meaning it is unlawful, and the person who does is corrupt (fasiq)], and  Allah knows best" (Fatawa al-Imam al-Nawawi (y105),113).

you can read more http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=507&CATE=2 - here . There are conditions to seeking dispensations. 

Other ulumah have said the same thing sister but i also think they are equally victim to dubious reporting by unprofessional reporters. Many of the delicate rulings are technical in nature and the reporter often has no clue about this as the fatwa never seeks to explain the logic behind the ruling [to minimise confusion] but simply state what the conclusion is so the fatwah is often mistranslated.
 

True brother. But just bcz we can forsee that, does not mean we not do anything about it. The BIGGEST threat to the Ummah today is breaking up into sects.

breaking up into sects is the result sister its not the cause, trace back this issue to its roots and you will find psychology can give you the answer, from the way the person is raised to life experiences, dreams and  humiliations. Western countries are now just beginning to recognise this and there views towards foreign people is changing. One example [which is indicative of the wider portion of the community that is bigoted in general] is a conversation i had with an Australian women she does not like the idea of keeping Australian borders open, 20 years ago she would have made some racist remarks  about why but instead she said that they cant assimilate that well because of the psychological scars or baggage they carry from life in there own countries. She wasn't an educated woman by any means sister but she didnt trivialise the issue to simply i dont like there skin color and THAT is the reason why they shouldn't be here.

And as muslims, it is our duty to remove any causes/elements to sects/breaking up. And I have felt, as have others, that sometimes simple 'innocent' labels such as these are what cause sub-groups to form, and divide etc etc.

With all due respect i think this is an over simplistic analysis sister, there needs to be a deep study into the causes, just like Australians in general no longer say hate is the reason why Palestinians are so ready to blow themselfs up simple labels are not the answer to this issue.

Brother, the reason we have 4 schools is because 4 different ppl came up with solutions to fiqh with different approaches, ALL in accordance with Quran, Sunnah and Hadith.

You aren't entirely right your just missing a large piece of the picture and don't seem to familiar with what it is that was actually done, if i was to ask you to elaborate on what the solutions where can you tell me.

. . the reason all 4 r accepted is because ALL FOUR are correct in thier interpretations. Which is why a person can choose to follow any of thier interpretations at any time without having to restrict him/herself to ONE. Thus eliminating the need for a label.

Please see my link above for a more detailled reason of why and how we can choose rullings from a different madhhab, its not so cut and dry, there is a need to follow just one but you MAY follow a ruling from another madhhab if you strongly feel it is more correct. If you think you can just prance around and pick rulings at will from any of the four with out proper investigation of each and every single ruling for you self then you are sorely mistaken sister as you need a real reason to follow a different madhhab, the only people who have this kind of dispensation are those with low intelligence or completely uneducated. I vageuly remember seeing a badily quoted piece on something about this from Ibn Qayim or Ibn Taymiyah it was badily quoted becouse the person who quoted didnt understand what it plainly said and assumed the people they where talking about was everyone from the Albert einstiens to the Bedouin in the desert.

just to be clear works such as fiqh as sunnah are not accepted legal works by any madhhab sister as it goes against what the Four rightly guided Imams have done and ignorantly/arrogantly/impossibly tries to combine them.

Insha allah i will reply to your later post another time.

 The sects are very much a reality. There is no running away from it now. If the Ulema of the middle ages or recent past did not do anything good to resolve the differences then it is no use denying them. The sects are mentioned in the Quran and it is advised that Muslims should not divide into sects... Something that was forbidden is already here with us.

 

 

 

Brother, with all due respect, you tend to go too deep into the literal meaning of words. But even if taken literally, there is nothing 'christian' abt the term, niether did I find any such roots when I looked it up.

Essentially the english language and its development is inseparable from the history of the Christian people. Ive lived in this country long enough to know how it used to be used and how it is used today among other terms. You are right about the literal aspect sister, generally i am interested in the reality of things, there state or condition in relation to how Allah created our nature and how he has asked us to be i.e Islam. Ive found that people who tend to focus entirely on what people imply and not what they say are essentially susceptible and suffering from waswasa if not outright slaves to it and thats putting it nicely.

This isnt something ive realised out of thin air this is plainly what Imam an nawawi himself said among many other Uluma who have described the human condition and states in relation to spiritual and physical influences such as shaytan [hmm....that sounds like the title of a thesis].

peoples behavior is dictated by how society acts and behaves as it defines the norm, most are not inwardly strong enough to resist such influence on there minds. When you let Allah decide what is normal in your life by giving his will the importance it deserves in your life and you live in an Immoral society/world/time what is normal to most people is not normal for you, there are people of different insights levels of intelligence and other factors which allow people to see the reality of things [essentially humans are deluded otherwise this world would be different] to differing degrees so you may not reach the same conclusions i have even though we may study the same thing, Having said all that i am not a saint sister or perfect.

Da'wah and nahi-anil-munkar are duties of a muslim, I agree. But when one says that they are not being self-righteous is when they are admitting thier fallibility, and possibility that they may be wrong.

I will admit im nitpicking here but certain terms hit a nerve with me especially when Muslims use them. The word is currently derogatory in western society and does nothing more than to stop people from thinking along righteous lines.

Words influence peoples psychology not just the word but the way it is phrased or how the language is structured it promotes certain behavior or attitude and conjures up imagery in the mind which a person then relates to or disagrees with. If arabs spoke the same arabic that the Quran uses which essentially was the normal language of Arab society back then that alone would have been enough to right most wrongs in the muslim world today. Why do you think the non muslims in the prophets time used to cover there ears when the Quran was being recited not because it had magical properties [although the words of allah do have a spiritual effect] but because of the way its language was structured which allowed it to penetrate there minds [or psychological barriers] and caused them to think along the correct lines or correct trains of thought.

It literally raised people UP morally by hearing it, sayidinah Umar [ra] is one such example.

Maybe i could go further into why these terms are Christian in nature and the result of that religions impact on peoples psychology but ill leave it here as the post is long enough as it is.

Brother, not all sahabah could prevent sects,

Although you are right in saying the sahabah could not stop sects from forming that wasnt what i was referring to. i meant the sahabah disagreed among them selfs and they couldn't all come to the same conclusion on everything.

By suggesting that I am trying to do something they couldnt, you seem to be implying that I am wrong, or I shouldnt dare go where the Sahabah didnt/couldnt ! (with all due respect to the sahabah)

You are wrong in calling for the unification of the madhhabs by getting rid of labels and with all due respect its naive and ignorant of what it is the madhhabs are and the actual work they have done. Dont take my words in the general sense im being specific and brief as i dont want to sit here and explain the different Principles and Ijtihad that the Ulumah have done over the years in various sciences such as Aqeedah, language and tafsir which can never be combined.

No one has absolute knowledge to say this sahabahs opinion was right and this other one was wrong you can only have opinions about the matter.

Brother, you seem to have gone off the tangent from defending the madhab labels to now justifying sects/rifts !

im not justifying sects, if you knew the proper islamic definition of what a sect is then you would see that. Many ignorant people i met [referring to the older arab generations] actually think a difference in Fiqh constitutes a sect, an ounce of common sense would tell you if you where to count all the different groups who differed in fiqh the number would be in the hundreds not 73 and thus that hadith can never refer to simple or slight difference in fiqh so these groups are not as doomsday as people are making them out to be.

regarding rifts i am saying you cant stop them the problem isnt the labels its the people.

This is why the USA can attack a muslim-country today and it is no longer considered an attack on muslims today, rather an attack on a 'nation' ! We have Afghanistan back-stabbing Pakistan, Kuwait backing attacks on Iraq and whatnot. Our identity as a muslim should NEVER take the backseat to our nationality. I do not consider nationalities unislamic. 

You are clearly confusing nationalism with islam, i would also suggest studying islamic history as muslims did not create these countries they where forced on us, divide and conquer was the imperial slogan.

Brother, I would appreciate if you coul pl give an e.g out of Hadith/sunnah.

rasul allah [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] in a hadith said that he would have answered all our questions i.e resolve all the issues but he didnt want to burden us with to many laws like the jews where burdened becouse they kept asking Musa [hs] about the minutest things. There are also clear instances in which the sahabah came to him having interpreted his words in various ways and he absolutely stayed silent on the matter he wasn't waiting for Gibril to bring him an answer he knew what he said beffore and didn't clarify. If i had time i would look up the hadiths there authentic.

sorry for the long reply.

 

      Wahabbi is not mazhab.subhan Allah!our muslims  uneducated about islam.Did you know,where came from terminology....Wahabbi?.Did you Know who was Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab?.actually he was great person.Subhan Allah......The religion Allah islam....the goal one,you should be know about tauheed,because after,koran and sunnah,it's so important. who knows that,Allah doesn't love FITNA.

 

 I give an example or two examples and need guidance from rami.

 

 

 

 

When you "sign up" for Islam you see the five pillars of Islam. And the set of beliefs. Its interesting that no one who "counseled" me at the time said that you now have to choose a madhhab.

 

I do agree that the schools of thought differ and so one should aim to be consistent in one's life.  But it is ODD to imagine that people upon meeting people will give themselves a label. Unless you are going to marry or have some deeper relations not sure why it would come up.

 

 

And really, as people born into Islam, how many people study and truly choose a madhhab? People tend to inherit from their parents etc. So most people don't study and make a conscious choice.

 

And meeting people in my travels, it was interesting  to see Muslims label each other, like whispering to me " she's a so and so." As if those labels had any meaning to me.

 

Are Muslims any different from wanting to be "in group" or out of group. And in places where Muslims dominate, well, we all need to feel belonging to a more inclusive group. I think you see less of that in a way in the west as people more past the labels as well, we are Muslims. There is  some sepration between Shia and Sunni, but no one I"ve met has ever given me  a madhhab they belong to.  And they may very well follow one or another. But I don't know it, and really in meeting people what does it matter?

 

I think this happens more in places where Muslims are the majority.