العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب

"The Lesson (and the ruling connected to it) is according to the generality of the wording not the specific reason for it's revelation."

-A general rule in Islamic Law mentioned by many scholars including Sh. Uthaymeen.

So that if there is a lesson to be learned from a Islamic text (Qur'an and Sunnah) the lesson is taken and applied generally , even if it had a specific reason for being revealed, and only becomes specific according to the specifics specified by the Islamic text connected to the text itself, regardless of the reason for its revelation.

So for example, the verse:

"And whoever among you is ill or has an ailment of the head [making shaving necessary must offer] a ransom of fasting [three days] or charity or sacrifice."-2:196

It was sent because a companion of the Prophet was facing these circumstances, making it specifically sent because of him, however, the ruling is general in that anyone who falls under the same circumstances can apply the ruling.

Is every ruling of a Mujtahid Scholar correct?

Is every Mujtahid Scholar correct or can some of them be incorrect in their rulings in the branches of Islamic law? 

Imam Abd Al-Mu’min Al-Hanbali (658-739)(رحمه الله) says:[1]

“الحق في قول واحد, و المخطئ في الفروع – ولا قاطع- معذور, مأجور على اجتهاده “

“The truth is (only) in one statement (ruling).  And as for the scholar who makes a mistake in issues related to the branches of the religion (not in issues that have definitive proofs), he is excused, rewarded for his Ijtihaad (deductive ruling)”

Sheikh Abd Allah bin Saalih Al-Fawzaan Says:

“This issue is concerning the correctness of a Mujtahid Scholar[2], and regarding it there are two opinions:

The first: That only one opinion can be correct, and anything besides that is wrong, this is because the truth can only be one and not more than one. And this is what the large part of scholars (Jamhoor) are upon from the Shafi’I, Maaliki, and Hanbali Madhabs, and it is one opinion from the Hanafis.

As for the one who is incorrect, he has made a mistake in an issue from the among the issues of the branches of Islamic Jurisprudence (Furoo in Fiqh) in which the proofs are “supposed (ظنية)” and not “definitive (قاطع”)-which come from the texts of Quran and Sunnah or Ijma’a (Majority ruling), then he (the one who made the mistake) is excused, and there is no sin upon him, because of the correctness of his intention, and because he made a mistake without intending to do so.

Rather he is rewarded because of the hadeeth where the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) said “If a ruler rules by his Ijtihaad (deductive ruling) and he makes a mistake (in the ruling) he has one reward.” And this reward is the reward to him for doing the Ijtihaad (deductive ruling).

Imam Abd Al-Mu’min continues by saying:

"و قال بعض المتكلمين: كل مجتهد مصيب, و ليس على الحق دليل مطلوب. و قال بعضهم: اختلف فيه عن أبي حنيفة و أصحابه..."

And some Islamic Scholars of Rhetoric have said that every Mujtahid scholar is correct, and it is not a requisite for the truth (In an Islamic issue: i.e.: مسالة) that there come along with it a (definitive) proof (directly and clearly from the text: i.e.:  نصيor قطعي: i.e.: definitive), and some of them said Abu Haneefa (رحمه الله) and his companions had a difference of opinion about which one of these was correct.”

Shiekh Abd Allah says:

“The second opinion concerning the correctness of the Mujtahid scholar and his mistakes when he does Ijtihaad (deductive ruling), is that every Mujtahid scholar is correct, and that it is not a requisite for the truth to be true that it come along with definitive proof (قطعي), rather whomsoever struggles in trying to find the correct answer from among the various possibilities he is correct, because of the lack of definitive proof for that answer to be completely clear that it is in fact the only correct way from among the other opinions that differ from that scholars selection.

As for the first position it is the most correct in this issue, because of the hadeeth that was previously mentioned of Aamir bin Al-‘Aaas where he heard the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) say “If the ruler rules with his deductive ruling (Ijtihaad) and he is correct, he will get two rewards, and if the ruler rules with deductive ruling (Ijtihaad) and makes a mistake, he will get one reward.”[3]

Sheikh  Sa’ad  bin Naasir Ash-Shatari mentions in his book “Al-Usool wa al-Furoo’” the following concerning this specific issue.

“The People of Knowledge differ concerning the rulings related to the branches (furoo) of Islamic law when the people of Ijtihaad (deductive ruling) have differed in their rulings: The issue is, “Is the truth in only one of their rulings, or can the truth be in multiple rulings for any specific issue?”

 In which case the scholars have two statements:

That the truth is in only one of the rulings (and the rest of the rulings in the same issue are wrong), and the Majority (Jamhoor) had this opinion, it is an opinion of Abu Haneefa (رحمه الله), and most of his companions took it as well, and it is a statement of Imam Malik (رحمه الله)  and most of the Madhab, and it is a statement of Shafi’I (رحمه الله)  and most of the Madhab as well, and it is a statement of Imam Ahmad (رحمه الله)  it is what those who follow him follow.  Likewise there is a group from the Mu’tazilites who take it and a saying of Abu Al-Hasan Al-Asha’ri (رحمه الله) and some of the Ashaa’irah have followed it. 

They derived this ruling from many proofs, and from the most prominent of those proofs are:

1)      The Statement of Allah in the English translation:

“And [mention] David and Solomon, when they judged concerning the field - when the sheep of a people overran it [at night], and We were witness to their judgment. And We gave understanding of the case to Solomon, and to each [of them] We gave judgment and knowledge. And We subjected the mountains to exalt [Us], along with David and [also] the birds. And We were doing [that].” [4]

So Allah says: “And We gave understanding of the case to Solomon”

And in order to understand the reasoning behind their deriving the proofs from these verses is that Allah specified Suleiman with understanding which proves that he was correct in his ruling, and a ruling that differed with him was a mistake.

The opposition in terms of those who disagree with these derived proofs mention the following points:

a)      That saying this causes you to say that the Prophets of Allah are fallible, and this is not correct.

In response to this we say, they are infallible in their delivering the message sent by God, and they are infallible in terms of doing major sins, as for making some mistakes in rulings then no they are not infallible. (They would mistake and Allah would correct them.)

b)      It could be that they both were correct in their rulings and it only meant that Allah specified Suleiman and not Dawood.

In response to this we say, that the ayah proves that not only was Suleiman specified with understanding, anything that opposed his ruling was wrong.  Alongside that when Dawood heard the ruling of Suleiman he retracted his ruling, and one would not do that unless he was mistaken”

The sheikh goes on to mention 17 proofs for this opinion, however the nature of the article is not necessarily to prove which opinion is correct through the proofs, rather it is to mention that the opinion that truth only resides in one is not only the opinion of the Hanbali Madhab as well this has been mentioned in Rawdhatu Naadhir by Muwafiq Ad-Deen Ibn Qudaama Al-Maqdisi   (541-620) (رحمه الله) , but many scholars also accepted and took this as their opinion. So therefore if a person would like further information he should return to the book and read what the Sheikh brought forth.

Then he mentions the second opinion by stating:

“That every Mujtahid is correct, and anything that his Ijtihaad(deductive ruling)  leads to it is true, so the truth with them is multiple, and it has been said that Abu Haneefa held this opinion, and a statement of Maalik, and it has been linked to Shaafi’i, however some of them have denied this from among his Madhab, and this is because it has been found in some texts that the Mujtahid is correct in his ijtihaad(deductive ruling)  even if he doesn’t arrive upon the correct answer, so they understood from this that every Mujtahid is correct. This is the opinion of the Mu’tazilite and most of the Ash’aairah, and Imam Al-Ghazaali (رحمه الله) and Ibn Burhaan. (رحمه الله)”

In order to clarify in a way that can be understood, we can look at an issue of the branches of Fiqh where the scholars disagreed, for example in the issue of whether or not the eating of Camel meat breaks ones spiritual purity (Al-Wudhu’). Some say it does, and some say it doesn’t.

So if we take the first statement as truth, in that not every Mujtahid scholar is correct, we would say that, the opinion for example of the Hanaabilah is correct in that eating Camel meat does break ones Wudhu’ and anyone who said otherwise from among the scholars is wrong, however they are rewarded for their Ijtihaad (deductive ruling).

The second opinion would say that, no both of these opinions are right, and both scholars are right. Now this is hard to understand because how can the Law of Allah be more than one in any one specific issue? How can eating Camel both break your Wudhu’ and not break your Wudhu’ at the same time? We say, according to the first opinion of this article, that in can’t be true. The law with Allah in both Usool (Foundations) and Furoo (Branches)is only one way, and when a scholar does Ijtihaad (deductive ruling)” in the branches he is rewarded, however, only one of them is correct, and the correct one gets two rewards.

Alongside this we have to mention that even though we believe that only one Mujtahid Scholar is correct, this doesn’t mean we don’t accept differences of opinions. Rather we accept differences of opinions in the branches of Fiqh, and we don’t allow this to cause differing or hatred, we respect that perhaps in these issues of the branches the scholars who have given other rulings that differ than ours have saw the proofs differently than the scholars whom we may be following, and thus even though we believe that only one of them is correct, if it’s an issue that is not entirely clear[5], we can’t be entirely certain that we are correct and he is incorrect. Thus we accept the difference, and say it’s possible he may be right, however we still feel as though we are following what is correct. While in the law of Allah (The Shariah) only one right way truly exists.

Written by Abu Hasaan Yahya Trento, 4/16/2013.

May Allah send his peace and blessings upon his Prophet Muhammad, Upon his Family, and Upon All of his companions.

---

[1] Taken from the book by The Imam Abd Al-Mu’min Abd bin Al-Hayy Al-Baghdaadi Al-Hanbali(658-739 Hijri) in his book “Tayseer Al-Wusool ilaa Qawaa’id al-usool wa ma’aqid al-fusool  with the explanation by Sheikh Abd Allah bin Saalih Al –Fawzaan:

[2] Meaning, is a Mujtahid correct all the time when he gives a ruling concerning an Issue of the branches of Islamic Jurisprudence? Or is only one of them correct, while the rest are incorrect?

[3] Bukhaari 7352, Muslim 1716

[4] 21:78-79

[5] From proof that is supposed. 

Every person who Innovates is not called an Innovator.

Is Everyone who does an Innovation called an Innovator?

Sheikh Bin Baaz (Allah have mercy  on him) Said:

"The origins of this, is that whoever does an act of innovation is an innovator, this is the origin. However, if the person is ignorant, and if he were to know what he is doing is an innovation he would repent, we don’t call him an innovator. If he insists upon his innovation, he is called an innovator, according to his innovation. So the person who were to celebrate the birthday of the Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم-  for example, he would be called an innovator until he stops and repents. Or for the one who builds shrines upon the graves, or prays to them, or builds Masajid on them. Then in this case he would be an innovator. And things like this, they are Innovations that Allah made impermissible. The Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Be aware of the newly invented matters, because every innovation is misguidance” and that which is similar to it in other ahadith where He - صلى الله عليه وسلم -  said “Whoever innovates into this Religion that which isn't from it, it will be rejected’, and that which is mention in the Khutbah on Friday by the Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم -, “As for what follows, the best speech is the speech of Allah and the best guidance is the guidance of the Prophet - صلى الله عليه وسلم -, and the worst of Affairs are the newly invented matters, every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is in the hell fire.” 

So the Muslim should follow the order of the Prophet Muhammad - صلى الله عليه وسلم -, be careful of Innovations. So the people of innovators are those who continue in innovation, (Knowing it’s an innovation) until they repent for it to Allah. So the ignorant knows, whoever seeks Allahs forgiveness, Allah will forgive him."

_________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.binbaz.org.sa/mat/10701

Condemnation in issues that have different opinions

The Principle of "No condemnation in Issues that have different Opinions" Is the following in Arabic:

“عدم الإنكار في مسائل الخلاف”

or

"لا إنكار في مسائل الخلاف"

This principle is from amongst the many applicable principles related to calling to good and forbidding evil, and the reason for understanding this principle is important, because by it many people have made a mistake, in reality the rule should read: 

"لا إنكار في مسائل الاجتهاد"

Which means: There is no Condemnation in issues in which there is room for scholarly interpretation.

The reason for needing this important clarification is because you will find that many people who read this rule, they start reading about differences of opinions concerning some issues, and they go about paroting this rule in relation to all of the opinions that they read about. However they will do this concerning every issue, no matter if it’s concerning something such as raising their hands during the prayer, Saying the Ameen loudly, or a woman covering her face in front of non Mahram men, so to the person saying this rule, he will not differentiate between what truly is deserving of this rule and what is not. 

However, the reality of the matter is that this is not the case, some issues with differences should be condemned, rather some of them must be condemned. So issues  which specifically allow for Scholarly interpretation[1] due to a different understanding or outlook are the ones which allow for this rule to be quoted. However, as for those opinions and or methods in any Madhab that clearly goes against the texts of Qur’an and Sunnah, then no doubt this needs to be condemned and this rule is not applicable in these circumstances, even if this method or action became famous among the people and people started to follow the mistake, it doesn't mean it shouldn’t be condemned 

Allah says in Surah 24:63, in the second part of this verse:

"So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment. "

So, in order to use this principle we have to understand the issues which are in actuality those that allow and have actual and valid differences, for example the issue of the different types of Hajj, so if one person chooses to do one type of Hajj, you cannot condemn him for that and tell him to do another type, even if you think the other type is better than the one he is choosing to do. 

One example of an issue that scholars have had differences of opinions concerning, however in reality are not valid and thus one can’t use this rule is the issue of prayer in congregation for the men [2], even if some scholars have viewed it as not obligatory, we can’t accept this statement of theirs, and this is because of the ahadith that are clear in regards to this prayer, and one such example is when the Prophet (Alayi Salaam) warned of burning down the house of the person who left the prayer in the Masjid, however he wouldn’t do it because of the women and children who also lived in the house. So in this issue, it is obligatory to order and condemn the people, in order that they pray in the Masjid regardless of whether or not scholars held different opinions regarding it, because of the clarity of the proof related to it. 

Sheikh Al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah said regarding this in summary: 

“If the person is clearly going against the Sunnah of the Prophet (Alayi Salaam) or against the Majority opinion of the past, then it is obligatory to condemn that person, regardless of whether or not there is different statements concerning it from scholars, If this wasn’t the case then it would present a weakness that doesn’t exist concerning the true opinion of the Salaf and general masses of the scholars, that there is only one correct ruling for all issues. However if there is an issue in which case it is not clear as to what the sunnah is, and there is no Majority[3] opinion, and there is some room for scholarly interpretation, then in this issue there shouldn’t be any condemnation. Also in terms of actions, if a person is going against a sunnah or a majority opinion, then the condemnation is done according to the degree of severity of that thing the person is doing, as well if there is an issue in which some may believe that the hadith or text of Quran may point to the different understanding, in which case it allows for the scholarly interpretation to take place, then these issues as well should be left without doing any condemnation.”[4]

Sheikh Al-Uthaymeen said when asked concerning this issue:

 “If I were to say that there is no condemnation in issues of differences in the absolute sense, the entire religion would go away, and this because you will be hard pressed to find an issue in which people have differed concerning it, so for example a man will say, I will touch my wife, eat the meat of camels and then go pray while saying that he is following Imam Ahmad in the opinion concerning touching his wife and following Imam Shafi’i in that eating camel meat does not break his ablution, so is his prayer correct in this situation since he followed two different opinions of different Madhabs? No, it’s not correct. Because in one Madhab it cancels the prayer and in another it may or may not. 

Issues that have differences of opinions break down into two categories. 

1) The issue that allows for scholarly interpretation and this is the one that is a valid difference of opinion, and the ruling concerning this is a ruling that is done with the scholars intellect and insight in understanding the proofs, and so there is no condemnation in this part. As for the common man in this regard, he must follow that which the scholars are upon in his country, and this is why our sheikh Abd Ar-Rahman As-Sa’di said, the people are upon the Madhab of their scholars. 

2) The second category is that which does not allow for any difference, and it can’t be understood in any other way except for the way that is according to the Qur’an and Sunnah, it doesn’t allow for scholarly interpretation and thus there is always the need to condemn those who do not follow it, and there is [5]no excuse for people not to follow it."

Allah knows best and Peace and Blessings be upon our Beloved Prophet Muhammad and His Wives, Family, and All of his Companions, Ameen.

___________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Ijtihaad


[2] Salaatul Jama’a


[3] Ijmaa’


[4] بيان الدليل على بطلان التحليل (ص 210-211)


[5] لقاء الباب المفتوح (49/192-193)