*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
{ Sila lawat Laman Hizbi-Net - http://www.hizbi.net }
{ Hantarkan mesej anda ke: [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
{ Iklan barangan? Hantarkan ke [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
PAS : KE ARAH PEMERINTAHAN ISLAM YANG ADIL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Assalamualaikum.
Saya ingin ucapkan ribuan terima kasih atas maklumat ini kerana ia akan jadi
pengiring saya dalam berdepan dgn masalah madhhab.
Wassalamualaikum.
....................................................
>From: Sidi Shariff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: H-Net* Why Does One Have To Follow A Madhhab?
>Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 22:22:54 -0800 (PST)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Debate Between Muhammad Sa'id al-Buti and a Leading Salafi Teacher
>(c) Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1995
>
>[Nuh Ha Mim Keller:] I will close this answer by translating a
>conversation that took place in Damascus between Shari‘a professor
>Muhammad Sa‘id al-Buti, and a Salafi teacher. Buti asked him:
>
>Buti: “What is your method for understanding the rulings of Allah? Do
>you take them from the Qur’an and sunna, or from the Imams of
>ijtihad?”
>
>Salafi: “I examine the positions of the Imams and their evidences for
>them, and then take the closest of them to the evidence of the Qur’an
>and Sunna.”
>
>Buti: “You have five thousand Syrian pounds that you have saved for
>six months. You then buy merchandise and begin trading with it. When
>do you pay zakat on the merchandise, after six months, or after one
>year?”
>
>Salafi: [He thought, and said,] “Your question implies you believe
>zakat should be paid on business capital.”
>
>Buti: “I am just asking. You should answer in your own way. Here in
>front of you is a library containing books of Qur’anic exegesis,
>hadith, and the works of the mujtahid Imams.”
>
>Salafi: [He reflected for a moment, then said,] “Brother, this is
>din, and not simple matter. One could answer from the top of one’s
>head, but it would require thought, research, and study; all of which
>take time. And we have come to discuss something else.”
>
>Buti: I dropped the question and said, “All right. Is it obligatory
>for every Muslim to examine the evidences for the positions of the
>Imams, and adopt the closest of them to the Qur’an and Sunna?”
>
>Salafi: “Yes.”
>
>Buti: “This means that all people possess the same capacity for
>ijtihad that the Imams of the madhhabs have; or even greater, since
>without a doubt, anyone who can judge the positions of the Imams and
>evaluate them according to the measure of the Qur’an and sunna must
>know more than all of them.”
>
>Salafi: He said, “In reality, people are of three categories: the
>muqallid or ‘follower of qualified scholarship without knowing the
>primary textual evidence (of Qur’an and hadith)’; the muttabi‘, or
>‘follower of primary textual evidence’; and the mujtahid, or scholar
>who can deduce rulings directly from the primary textual evidence
>(ijtihad). He who compares between madhhabs and chooses the closest
>of them to the Qur’an is a muttabi‘, a follower of primary textual
>evidence, which is an intermediate degree between following
>scholarship (taqlid) and deducing rulings from primary texts
>(ijtihad).”
>
>Buti: “Then what is the follower of scholarship (muqallid) obliged to
>do?”
>
>Salafi: “To follow the mujtahid he agrees with.”
>
>Buti: “Is there any difficulty in his following one of them, adhering
>to him, and not changing?”
>
>Salafi: “Yes there is. It is unlawful (haram).”
>
>Buti: “What is the proof that it is unlawful?”
>
>Salafi: “The proof is that he is obliging himself to do something
>Allah Mighty and Majestic has not obligated him to.”
>
>Buti: I said, “Which of the seven canonical readings (qira’at) do you
>recite the Qur’an in?”
>
>Salafi: “That of Hafs.”
>
>Buti: “Do you recite only in it, or in a different canonical reading
>each day.”
>
>Salafi: “No, I recite only in it.”
>
>Buti: “Why do you read only it when Allah Mighty and Majestic has not
>obliged you to do anything except to recite the Qur’an as it has been
>conveyed—with the total certainty of tawatur (being conveyed by
>witnesses so numerous at every stage of transmission that their sheer
>numbers obviate the possibility of forgery or alteration), from the
>Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)?”
>
>Salafi: “Because I have not had a opportunity to study other
>canonical readings, or recite the Qur’an except in this way.”
>
>Buti: “But the individual who learns the fiqh of the Shafi‘i
>school—he too has not been able to study other madhhabs or had the
>opportunity to understand the rules of his religion except from this
>Imam. So if you say that he must know all the ijtihads of the Imams
>so as to go by all of them, it follows that you too must learn all
>the canonical readings so as to recite in all of them. And if you
>excuse yourself because you cannot, you should excuse him also. In
>any case, what I say is: where did you get that it is obligatory for
>a follower of scholarship (muqallid) to keep changing from one
>madhhab to another, when Allah has not obliged him to? That is, just
>as he is not obliged to adhere to a particular madhhab, neither is he
>obliged to keep changing.”
>
>Salafi: “What is unlawful for him is adhering to one while believing
>that Allah has commanded him to do so.”
>
>Buti: “That is something else, and is true without a doubt and
>without any disagreement among scholars. But is there any problem
>with his following a particular mujtahid, knowing that Allah has not
>obliged him to do that?”
>
>Salafi: “There is no problem.”
>
>Buti: [Al-Khajnadi’s] al-Karras, which you teach from, contradicts
>you. It says this is unlawful, in some places actually asserting that
>someone who adheres to a particular Imam and no other is an
>unbeliever (kafir).”
>
>Salafi: He said, “Where?” and then began looking at the Karras,
>considering its texts and expressions, reflecting on the words of the
>author “Whoever follows one of them in particular in all questions is
>a blind, imitating, mistaken bigot, and is “among those who have
>divided their religion and are parties” [Qur’an 30:32]. He said, “By
>follows, he means someone who believes it legally obligatory for him
>to do so. The wording is a little incomplete.”
>
>Buti: I said, “What evidence is there that that’s what he meant? Why
>don’t you just say the author was mistaken?”
>
>Salafi: He insisted that the expression was correct, that it should
>be understood as containing an unexpressed condition [i.e. “provided
>one believes it is legally obligatory”], and he exonerated the writer
>from any mistake in it.
>
>Buti: I said, “But interpreted in this fashion, the expression does
>not address any opponent or have any significance. Not a single
>Muslim is unaware that following such and such a particular Imam is
>not legally obligatory. No Muslim does so except from his own free
>will and choice.”
>
>Salafi: “How should this be, when I hear from many common people and
>some scholars that it is legally obligatory to follow one particular
>school, and that a person may not change to another?”
>
>Buti: “Name one person from the ordinary people or scholars who said
>that to you.”
>
> He said nothing, and seemed surprised that what I said could be
>true, and kept repeating that he had thought that many people
>considered it unlawful to change from one madhhab to another.
>
>I said, “You won’t find anyone today who believes this misconception,
>though it is related from the latter times of the Ottoman period that
>they considered a Hanafi changing from his own school to another to
>be an enormity. And without a doubt, if true, this was something that
>was complete nonsense from them; a blind, hateful bigotry.”
>
> I then said, “Where did you get this distinction between the
>muqallid “follower of scholarship” and the muttabi‘ “follower of
>evidence”: Is there a original, lexical distinction [in the Arabic
>language], or is it merely terminological?”
>
>Salafi: “There is a lexical difference.”
>
>Buti: I brought him lexicons with which to establish the lexical
>difference between the two words, and he could not find anything. I
>then said: “Abu Bakr (Allah be well pleased with him) said to a
>desert Arab who had objected to the alotment for him agreed upon by
>the Muslims, ‘If the Emigrants accept, you are but followers’—using
>the word "followers" (tabi‘) to mean ‘without any prerogative to
>consider, question, or discuss.’” (Similar to this is the word of
>Allah Most High, “When those who were followed (uttubi‘u) disown
>those those who followed (attaba‘u) upon seeing the torment, and
>their relations are sundered” (Qur’an 2:166), which uses follow
>(ittiba‘) for the most basic blind imitation).
>
>Salafi: He said, “Then let it be a technical difference: don’t I have
>a right to establish a terminological usage?”
>
>Buti: “Of course. But this term of yours does not alter the facts.
>This person you term a muttabi‘ (follower of scholarly evidence) will
>either be an expert in evidences and the means of textual deduction
>from them, in which case he is a mujtahid. Or, if not an expert or
>unable to deduce rulings from them, then he is muqallid (follower of
>scholarly conclusions). And if he is one of these on some questions,
>and the other on others, then he is a muqallid for some and a
>mujtahid for others. In any case, it is an either-or distinction, and
>the ruling for each is clear and plain.”
>
>Salafi: He said, “The muttabi‘ is someone able to distinguish between
>scholarly positions and the evidences for them, and to judge one to
>be stronger than others. This is a level different to merely
>accepting scholarly conclusions.
>
>Buti: “If you mean,” I said, “by distinguishing between positions
>differentiating them according to the strength or weakness of the
>evidence, this is the highest level of ijtihad. Are you personally
>able to do this?”
>
>Salafi: “I do so as much as I can.”
>
>Buti: “I am aware,” I said, “that you give as a fatwas that a three
>fold pronouncement of divorce on a single occasion only counts as one
>time. Did you check, before this fatwa of yours, the positions of the
>Imams and their evidences on this, then differentiate between them,
>so to give the fatwa accordingly? Now, ‘Uwaymir al-‘Ajlani pronounced
>a three fold divorce at one time in the presence of the Prophet
>(Allah bless him and give him peace) after he had made public
>imprecation against her for adultery (li‘an), saying, ‘If I retain
>her, O Messenger of Allah, I will have lied against her: she is
>[hereby] thrice divorced.’ What do you know about this hadith and its
>relation to this question, and its bearing as evidence for the
>position of the scholarly majority [that a threefold divorce
>pronounced on a single occasion is legally finalized and binding] as
>opposed to the position of Ibn Taymiya [that a threefold divorce on a
>single occasion only counts as once]?”
>
>Salafi: “I did not know this hadith.”
>
>Buti: “Then how could you give a fatwa on this question that
>contradicts what the four madhhabs unanimously concur upon, without
>even knowing their evidence, or how strong or weak it was? Here you
>are, discarding the principle you say you have enjoined on yourself
>and mean to enjoin on us, the principle of “following scholarly
>evidence (ittiba‘)” in the meaning you have terminologically
>adopted.”
>
>Salafi: “At the time I didn’t own enough books to review the
>positions of the Imams and their evidence.”
>
>Buti: “Then what made you rush into giving a fatwa contravening the
>vast majority of Muslims, when you hadn’t even seen any of their
>evidences?”
>
>Salafi: “What else could I do? I asked and I only had a limited
>amount of scholarly resources.”
>
>Buti: “You could have done what all scholars and Imams have done;
>namely, say “I didn’t know,” or told the questioner the postition of
>both the four madhhabs and the postion of those who contravene them;
>without givng a fatwa for either side. You could have done this, or
>rather, this was what was obligatory for you, especially since the
>poblem was not personally yours so as to force you to reach some
>solution or another. As for your giving a fatwa contradicting the
>consensus (ijma‘) of the four Imams without knowing—by your own
>admission—their evidences, sufficing yourself with the agreement in
>your heart for the evidences of the opposition, this is the very
>utmost of the kind of bigotry you accuse us of.”
>
>Salafi: “I read the Imams’ opinions in [Nayl al-awtar, by] Shawkani,
>Subul al-salam [by al-Amir al-San‘ani], and Fiqh al-sunna by Sayyid
>Sabiq.”
>
>Buti: These are the books of the opponents of the four Imams on this
>question. All of them speak from one side of the question, mentioning
>the proofs that buttress their side. Would you be willing to judge
>one litigant on the basis of his words alone, and that of his
>witnesses and relatives?”
>
>Salafi: I see nothing blameworthy in what I have done. I was obliged
>to give the questioner an answer, and this was as much as I was able
>to reach with my understanding.”
>
>Buti: “You say you are a “follower of scholarly evidence (muttabi‘)”
>and we should all be likewise. You have explained “following
>evidence” as reviewing the positions of all madhhabs, studying their
>evidences, and adopting the closest of them to the correct
>evidence—while in doing what you have done, you have discarded the
>principle completely. You know that the unanimous consensus of the
>four madhhabs is that a threefold pronouncement of divorce on one
>occasion counts as a three fold, finalized divorce, and you know that
>they have evidences for this that you arae unaware of, despite which
>you turn from their consensus to the opinion that your personal
>preference desires. Were you certain beforehand that the evidence of
>the four Imams deserved to be rejected?”
>
>Salafi: No; but I wasn’t aware of them, since I didn’t have any
>reference works on them.”
>
>Buti: “Then why didn’t you wait? Why rush into it, when Allah never
>obligated you to do anything of the sort? Was your not knowing the
>evidences of the scholarly majority a proof tht Ibn Taymiya was
>right? Is the bigotry you wrongly accuse us of anything besides
>this?”
>
>Salafi: “I read evidences in the books available to me that convinced
>me. Allah has not enjoined me to do more than that.”
>
>Buti: “If a Muslim sees a proof for something in a the books he
>reads, is that a sufficient reason to disregard the madhhabs that
>contradict his understanding, even if he doesn’t know their
>evidences?”
>
>Salafi: “It is sufficient.”
>
>Buti: “A young man, newly religious, without any Islamic education,
>reads the word of Allah Most High “To Allah belongs the place where
>the sun rises and where it sets: wherever you turn, there is the
>countenance of Allah. Verily, Allah is the All-encompassing, the
>All-knowing (Qur’an 2:115), and gathers from it that a Muslim may
>face any direction he wishes in his prescribed prayers, as the
>ostensive purport of the verse implies. But he has heard that the
>four Imams unanimously concur upon the necessity of his facing
>towards the Kaaba, and he knows they have evidences for it that he is
>unaware of. What should he do when he wants to pray? Should he follow
>his conviction from the evidence available to him, or follow the Imam
>who unanimously concur on the contrary of what he has understood?”
>
>Salafi: “He should follow his conviction.”
>
>Buti: “And pray towards the east for example. And his prayer would be
>legally valid?”
>
>Salafi: “Yes. He is morally responsible for following his personal
>conviction.”
>
>Buti: “What if his personal conviction leads him to believe there is
>no harm in making love to his neighbor’s wife, or to fill his belly
>with wine, or wrongfully take others’ property: will all this be
>mitigated in Allah’s reckoning by “personal conviction”?
>
>Salafi: [He was silent for a moment, then said,] “Anyway, the
>examples you ask about are all fantasies that do not occur.”
>
>Buti: “They are not fantasies; how often the like of them occurs, or
>even stranger. A young man without any knowledge of Islam, its Book,
>its sunna, who happens to hear or read this verse by chance, and
>understands from it what any Arab would from its owtward purport,
>that there is no harm in someone praying facing any direction he
>wants—despite seeing people’s facing towards the Kaaba rather than
>any other direction. This is an ordinary matter, theoretically and
>practically, as long as there are those among Muslims who don’t know
>a thing about Islam. In any event, you have pronounced upon this
>example—imaginary or real—a judgement that is not imaginary, and have
>judged “personal conviction” to be the decisive criterion in any
>event. This contradicts your differentiating people into three
>groups: followers of scholars without knowing their evidence
>(muqallidin), followers of scholars’ evidence (muttabi‘in), and
>mujtahids.”
>
>Salafi: “Such a person is obliged to investigate. Didn’t he read any
>hadith, or any other Qur’anic verse?”
>
>Buti: He didn’t have any reference works available to him, just as
>you didn’t have any when you gave your fatwa on the question of
>[threefold] divorce. And he was unable to read anything other than
>this verse connected with facing the qibla and its obligatory
>character. Do you still insist that he must follow his personal
>conviction and disregard the Imams’ consensus?”
>
>Salafi: “Yes. If he is unable to evaluate and investigate further, he
>is excused, and it is enough for him to rely on the conclusions his
>evaluation and investigation lead him to.”
>
>Buti: “I intend to publish these remarks as yours. They are
>dangerous, and strange.”
>
>Salafi: “Publish whatever you want. I’m not afraid.”
>
>Buti: “How should you be afraid of me, when you are not afraid of
>Allah Mighty and Majestic, utterly discarding by these words the word
>of Allah Mighty and Majestic [in Sura al-Nahl] ‘Ask those who recall
>if you know not’ (Qur’an 16:43).”
>
>Salafi: “My brother,” he said, “These Imams are not divinely
>protected from error (ma‘sum). As for the Quranic verse that this
>person followed [in praying any direction], it is the word of Him Who
>Is Protected from All Error, may His glory be exalted. How should he
>leave the divinely protected and attach himself to the tail of the
>non-divinely-protected?”
>
>Buti: “Good man, what is divinely protected from error is the true
>meaning that Allah intended by saying, “To Allah belongs the place
>where the sun rises and where it sets . . .”—not the understanding of
>the young man who is as far as can be from knowing Islam, its
>rulings, and the nature of its Qur’an. That is to say, the comparison
>I am asking you to make is between two understandings: the
>understanding of this ignorant youth, and the understanding of the
>mujtahid Imams, neither of which is divinely protected from error,
>but one of which is rooted in ignorance and superficiality, and the
>other of which is rooted in investigation, knowledge, and accuracy.”
>
>
>Salafi: “Allah does not make him responsible for more than his effort
>can do.”
>
>Buti: “Then answer me this question. A man has a child who suffers
>from some infections, and is under the care of all the doctors in
>town, who agree he should have a certain medicine, and warn his
>father against giving him an injection of penicillin, and that if he
>does, he will be exposing the child’s life to destruction. Now, the
>father knows from having read a medical publication that penicillin
>helps in cases of infection. So he relies on his own knowledge about
>it, disregards the advice of the doctors since he doesn’t know the
>proof for what they say, and employing instead his own personal
>conviction, treats the child with a penicillin injection, and
>thereafter the child dies. Should such a person be tried, and is he
>guilty of a wrong for what he did, or not?”
>
>Salafi: [He thought for a moment and then said,] “This is not the
>same as that.”
>
>Buti: “It is exactly the same. The father has heard the unanimous
>judgement of the doctors, just as the young man has heard the
>unanimous judgement of the Imams. One has followed a single text he
>read in a medical publication, the other has followed a single text
>he has read in the Book of Allah Mighty and and Majestic. This one
>has gone by personal conviction, and so has that.”
>
>Salafi: “Brother, the Qur’an is light. Light. In its clarity as
>evidence, is light like any other words?”
>
>Buti: “And the light of the Qur’an is reflected by anyone who looks
>into it or recites it, such that he understands it as light, as Allah
>meant it? Then what is the difference between those who recall
>[Qur’an 16:43] and anyone else, as long as all partake of this light?
>Rather, the two above examples are comparable, there is no difference
>between them at all; you must answer me: does the person
>investigating—in each of the two examples—follow his personal
>conviction, or does he follow and imitate specialists?”
>
>Salafi: “Personal conviction is the basis.”
>
>Buti: “He used personal conviction, and it resulted in the death of
>the child. Does this entail any responsibility, moral or legal?”
>
>Salafi: “It doesn’t entail any responsibility at all.”
>
>Buti: I said, “Then let us end the investigation and discussion on
>this last remark of yours, since it closes the way to any common
>ground between you and me on which we can base a discussion. It is
>sufficient that with this bizarre answer of yours, you have departed
>from the consensus of the entire Islamic religion. By Allah, there is
>no meaning on the face of the earth for disgusting bigotry if it is
>not what you people have” (al-Lamadhhabiyya (b01), 99–108).
>
>Buti concludes the story by saying:
>
>I do not know then, why these people don’t just let us be, to use our
>own “personal conviction” that someone ignorant of the rules of
>religion and the proofs for them must adhere to one of the mujtahid
>Imams, imitating him because of the latter’s being more aware than
>himself of the Book of Allah and sunna of His messenger. Whatever the
>mistake in this opinion in their view let it be given the general
>amnesty of “personal conviction.” like the example of him who turns
>his back to the qibla and is his prayer is valid, or him who kills a
>child and the killing is “ijtihad” and “medical treatment” (ibid.
>108).
>
>wassallam.
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
>http://im.yahoo.com
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ( Melanggan ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body : SUBSCRIBE HIZB)
> ( Berhenti ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body: UNSUBSCRIBE HIZB)
> ( Segala pendapat yang dikemukakan tidak menggambarkan )
> ( pandangan rasmi & bukan tanggungjawab HIZBI-Net )
> ( Bermasalah? Sila hubungi [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Pengirim: Sidi Shariff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( Melanggan ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body : SUBSCRIBE HIZB)
( Berhenti ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body: UNSUBSCRIBE HIZB)
( Segala pendapat yang dikemukakan tidak menggambarkan )
( pandangan rasmi & bukan tanggungjawab HIZBI-Net )
( Bermasalah? Sila hubungi [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pengirim: "Tad deBoar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
