Some oppressive people have began insulting Imām Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb by quoting his statement out of context;
“Most of al-Iqnā’ and al-Muntahā (i.e. two major hanbalī books among
the later scholars) oppose the madhab of Ahmad and his words, those who
know this would know.”
Let’s examine this quote by observing its context and see what Imām Muhammad really means.
One of the contemporary shuyūkh who teach Hanbalī Fiqh, Sālih Ibn
‘Abdillāh al-‘Usaymī al-Hanbalī (may Allāh guide him) mentions in his
commentary upon “Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah” (lesson 1, minute 110):
❝His statement (i.e. Imām Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb); “Most of al-Iqnā’
and al-Muntahā oppose the madhab of Ahmad and his words”. He intended
Ahmad’s personal madhab, since the madhab which is attributed to the
Imām is divided into two types:
1 — A personal specific madhab, and it is his own words.
2 — A general madhab, and it is what his companions and followers are upon, even if it opposes the words of the Imām.
Hence, it’s not correct to say that every text from Imām Ahmad is considered the madhab of the Hanābilah.
And it’s not correct to say that everything from the madhab of the Hanābilah is the text of Ahmad.
Moreover, his statement, that the majority of al-Iqnā’ and al-Muntahā
opposes the madhab of Ahmad is from the aspect of Imām Ahmad has
numerous narrations from him, and what’s mentioned in those two books is
restricted to a single view from him.
So this is the aspect of
it opposing (his madhab), not because the majority of these books oppose
the text of Ahmad, this is far-fetched.
However, what’s intended
by it opposing (his madhab) is due to what’s narrated from him of
numerous narrations which is within the capacity of his followers (among
the scholars) in exerting efforts to determine his view from it.❞
❝You tend to find from those who fanatically adhere to the madhab of
the Imāms that in most matters they opposed the words of their Imāms,
and they followed the sayings of the muta’akhireen (later scholars) from
their own madhab.
So they strive to seek what the most recent scholar has said, and what the most recent one (to them) has said.
Hence, whenever a person lives in a later period of time, they would
take his words, and they would abandon, or almost abandon the sayings of
whoever is above them (i.e. came previously).
The people in each
era only give verdicts according to the closest, and the most closest
to them, and the further the time-spam is, the greater the sayings of
the earlier scholars are abandoned and staying away from it, that you’ll
almost find the books of the earlier scholars unavailable amongst them,
and if it’s available in their hands, then it’s abandoned.
For
instance, the Hanābilah relied upon what’s mentioned in Al-Iqnā’ and
al-Muntahā, and they do not look at what’s besides these two books.
And whoever opposes the madhab of the later scholars, then according to
them he is opposing the madhab of Ahmad.
Despite the fact that many matters which the later scholars mentioned
with certainty (a being from the madhab) oppose the texts of Ahmad,
those who know this would know.
While you’ll find the books of
the Mutaqadimīn (early Hanbalī scholars) from the companions of Ahmad
abandoned among them, infact they even abandoned the books of the
Mutawasitīn (those in the middle era of the Hanbalī scholars), and they
did not rely except upon the books of the Muta’akhirīn (later Hanbalī
scholars).
Therefore, “Al-Mughnī”, “Ash-Sharh”, “Al-Insāf”,
“Al-Furū’” and the likes of these books which its respective authors
mention the differences among the Imāms, or the disputes among the
As’hāb (companions of the madhab), they do not look into it.
So
these people are in reality the followers of al-Hajjāwī (i.e. author of
al-Iqnā’ & Zād al-Mustaqni’) and Ibn al-Najjār (i.e. author of
Muntahā al-Irādāt), not the followers of Ahmad.
Likewise the
muta’akhirīn of the Shāfi’iyyah are in reality the followers of Ibn Hajr
al-Haytamī, the author of “At-Tuhfah” and his likes among those whom
explained “Al-Minhāj”.
So whatever opposes that from the texts of Ash-Shāfi’ī, they don’t pay any attention too whatsoever.
Likewise the muta’akhirīn of the Mālikiyyah are in reality the
followers of Khalīl, they do not pay attention to what opposes
“Mukhtasar Khalīl” at all, even if they found an authentically
confirmed hadīth in the “Sahīhayn” (bukhārī & muslim), they wouldn’t
act upon it if it opposes the madhab.
And within every madhab,
they rely upon the books of their later scholars, not returning back
except towards it, not depending upon anything except it.
As for
the books of hadīth, such as the 6 mother books, and other books of
hadīth and its explanation, and the major books of Fiqh which mention
the disputes of the Imāms, along with the opinions of the Sahābah and
Tābi’īn, then they have abandoned them, infact it’s within a locked
cabinet, to merely seek blessings from it, without acting upon it.❞
Furthermore, the noble Hāfidh and Faqeeh, Shaykh al-‘Allāmah Sulaymān
Ibn Nāsir al-‘Alwān mentions a golden benefit with
regards to the Hanbalī Fiqh books to study, wherein he says:
❝With regards to the Fiqh of the Hanābilah, then their Fiqh works are
numerous. Concerning the concise texts, the greatest book in terms of
being concise and precisely determining the madhab is “al-Muharrar” by
Abī al-Barakāt (i.e. Majd ad-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah, the grandfather of
Shaykh al-Islām).
This is the best book within the madhab,
however it wasn’t studied thoroughly (from those who came after), but
from the aspect of the madhab, it is mu’tamad (the official hanbali
position), he mentions two narrations and two views amongst the
companions.
And there’s a difference between it and between
az-Zād (i.e. Zād al-Mustaqni’ by al-Hajjāwī), even though az-Zād is
considered mu’tamad according to the Muta’akhirīn of the Hanābilah,
except that it’s divided into 3 categories;
1 — A category which isn’t from the madhab, he didn’t perfect the madhab.
2 — A category which is from the madhab, but it’s not the officially dominant narration within the madhab.
3 — A category which he determined the madhab’s official position, even
though this is what’s predominantly found within the book (i.e. most of
the book is in-line with the madhab).
However the book
“Al-Muharrar”, and it has a published commentary by Ibn Taymiyyah,
whoever relies upon it, he would perfect and precisely determine the
madhab (of Imām Ahmad).
Likewise, there are good concise books
within the madhab, such as “‘Umdat at-Tālib”, “Dalīl at-Tālib”, ’Umdat
al-Fiqh” by Ibn Qudāmah, these are all very useful concise books for
whoever wants to memorize.
However “Az-Zād” became widespread
due to its countless amount of explanations, and the work put into it by
the scholars, and it’s from the most popular of Hanbalī books that have
been explained.
But from the aspect of the longer books, you
have the book “Ar-Riwāyatayn” by Abī Ya’lah, this is a good book in
precisely determining the madhab. Likewise the book “Al-Mughnī” by Ibn
Qudāmah.
And the most comprehensive book gathering the narrations
within the madhab of Imām Ahmad is “Al-Insāf” by al-Mirdāwī, and it’s
printed and widespread, and it was recently printed in compressed form
via “Dār al-Afkār” in 2 volumes, otherwise it’s more than 10 volumes
without being in compressed form, and this is a great book and very
useful. He mentions ALL the narrations from Imām Ahmad and where they’re
found, so no student of knowledge can go without it. And there are also
numerous other books, but I intended a brief summary.❞
Infact,
let’s return back to the actual context of the original quote to see the
bigger picture. Imām Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb mentions in
“Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah” (1/44-45) when speaking with one of the
Shāfi’iyyah:
❝Your own Imām, ash-Shāfi’ī, mentioned: You must
find from me what opposes the hadīth, so everything that opposes it,
then testify that I have retracted my opinion for it.
Moreover,
when I differ with this ‘Ālim, I did not differ with him on my own, so
if I differ with a Shāfi’ī for example concerning the urine of
permissible animals to eat, and I said that the statement of it being
impure opposes the hadīth of the shepherds and the hadīth of Anas that
the Prophet (saws) prayed in sheepfolds (places where
sheeps stay).
Just to hear this oppressive Jāhil to say; Are you
more knowledgeable in hadīth than ash-Shāfi’ī? I would say, I did not
oppose ash-Shāfi’ī without an Imām which I follow, rather I followed
someone like ash-Shāfi’ī, or someone more knowledgeable differed with
him, and used these hadīths as proof.
So if he says, are you more knowledgeable than ash-Shāfi’ī? I would say, are you more knowledgeable than Mālik or Ahmad?!
I have put forth to him what he has put forth to me, whereas the proof
is safe from any opposition, and I followed the statement of Allāh:
“And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah
and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day.”
[4:59].
And I followed whoever follows the proof in this issue
among the people of knowledge. I did not use the Qur’ān or hadīth as
proof on my own, so that I may be directed with what has been said.
And I’m simply saying this for argument sake (that this is
ash-Shāfi’ī’s opinion), otherwise it’s well-known that you are a
follower of Ibn Hajr (al-Haytamī) in reality, and you don’t pay
attention to whoever opposes him from a messenger, companion, successor,
infact even ash-Shāfi’ī himself, and you don’t pay attention to his
words if he opposes the words of Ibn Hajr (al-Haytamī).
Likewise
with those other than you, they are followers of some later scholars,
not their A’immah (i.e. 4 Imāms), as for example, these Hanābilah are
among the least of people who fall into bid’ah, and (despite this) most
of al-Iqnā’ and al-Muntahā (i.e. two major hanbalī books among the later
scholars) oppose the madhab of Ahmad and his words, those who know this
would know.❞
Conclusion: I simply wanted to clarify this issue
without adding any of my words, but simply posting from the scholars
alone, but just to summarize it in short.
— We have shown what
Imām Muhammad means by most of Al-Hajjāwī’s “Iqnā’” opposing
the madhab and words of Ahmad, and that’s referring to his personal
opinions, and how not every opinion of Ahmad is considered the Madhab.
— We have come to learn the importance of studying Fiqh by returning
back to the earlier scholars of the Madhabs, and then to refer back to
the authentic hadīths, not to simply keep it locked in a cabinet to seek
blessings from it.
— Shaykh Sulaymān al-‘Alwān
said most of Al-Hajjāwī’s “Zād al-Mustaqni’” is in accordance with the
official position of the Hanbalī madhab.
Therefore, perhaps if
Imām Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb mentioned: “There are many
matters that oppose Ahmad’s madhab” to prove his point against his
opponent, it would’ve been better than saying “most”.
And we must
also remember no Imām is free from mistakes, so everyone is free to
disagree with a mistake a ‘Ālim makes, but to take something out of
context and then insult him unjustly is the behavior of tyrannical
oppressors, but Allāh always defends His righteous servants.
No comments:
Post a Comment