# Statements: # Imam **Abu Haneefah** (may Allah have mercy on him) said: > "If the hadeeth is saheeh then that is my madhhab." > > “It is not permissible for anyone to follow what we say if they do not know where we got it from.” > > (According to another report) > “It is haraam for the one who does not know my evidence to issue a fatwa based on my words.” > > (According to another report, he added:) >“We are human, we may say something today and retract it tomorrow.” > > “If I say something that goes against the Book of Allaah or the report of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then ignore what I say.” Imam **Maalik** (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: >“I am only human, sometimes I make mistakes and sometimes I get things right. Look at my opinion and whatever is in accordance with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, take it, and whatever is not in accordance with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, ignore it.” > > “There is no one after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) whose words cannot be taken or left, apart from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” (“Everyone’s statement can be taken or rejected except for the companion of this grave”) Imam **al-Shaafa’i** (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: > “There is no one who will not be unaware of some of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Whatever I say or whatever guidelines I establish, if there is a report from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which is different to what I said, then what matters is what the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, and that is my opinion.” Imam **Ahmad** (may Allah have mercy on him) said: > “Do not follow me blindly and do not follow Maalik or al-Shaafa’i or al-Awzaa’i or al-Thawri blindly. Learn from where they learned.” > > “The opinion of al-Awzaa’i and the opinion of Maalik and the opinion of Abu Haneefah are all mere conjecture and it is all the same to me. Rather evidence is to be found in the reports – i.e., in the shar’i evidence.” These statements are widely cited by many including Islamqa and are so much popular that people don't feel the necessity to give the source of it. So I would like to know where this statement is written. What is the source of these statements? Where did these statements come from? There must be a source. I hope someone will be able to find it. Jazzak Allah Khair.

I have always followed the Shafi'i madhhab. However, now it seems to me that the Hanafi madhhab will mostly be easier for me. Can I now follow the Hanafi madhhab only because it seems to me that it is easier? Also, do I need to make up for prayers, ablutions, performed correctly according to the Shafi'i madhhab, but not correctly according to the Hanafi madhhab, for example, if I bled because of a cut, then I did not renew the ablution because I followed the Shafi'i madhhab and did the prayer with such ablution, now if I follow the Hanafi madhhab, do I need to make up all such prayers, after all, in the Hanafi madhhab, if blood flows from the wound, ablution is violated?

Given that eel is clearly a water animal, one would think that it would fall under the general ruling of the hadith wherein [the sea's water is pure and its dead is permissible](https://sunnah.com/nasai/42/88) . However, I clearly recall reading from various sources that eel is considered haram by at least one of the major schools of jurisprudence. The internet being what it is, I've had trouble finding reliable references thereof; the best I've learned is that eel is clearly *halal* according to the Hanafi school (which I find interesting, considering how many other species of seafood they don't deem thus), but I've found little more than vague references that either the Maliki or Hanbali schools consider it *haram*, but with nothing to back them up. I've also not found any clear evidences as to *why* eel is considered thus. A few possibilities I've seen presented, again without any reliable references to back them up, are as follow: * Eel is not "fish-shaped" (neither are most shellfish) * Eel does not have scales (does this even matter?) * Eel is a predator (a lot of fish are) So the question lies thus: **Which school(s), if any, do not consider eel inherently *halal* (like other seafood), and why not?**

- As per 9:5, Jihad is warranted against all Mushrikin (except Daar al-'Ahd) - As per 9:7, It is said that only Mu'ahadat made at al-Masjid al-Haram are valid - As per 9:28, Mushrikin are not allowed to come near al-Masjid al-Haram Mushrikin includes all non-Muslims, but Ahl al-Kitab has the option of paying Jizya to become Ahl al-Dhimma as per 9:29. But that doesn't explain formation of a Mu'ahadah to become Daar al-'Ahd. As per Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 9:6, the Ahl al-Harb are allowed to come in to Daar al-Islam as Musta'min to make Mu'ahadat with the Muslims. > In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, **to negotiate a peace treaty**, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary. How is this possible if al-Masjid al-Haram is off limits? As per the Tafsir Tazkirul Quran by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, no further treaty was signed with the Ahl al-'Ahd (Banu Kinana, Banu Khuza’a, Banu Dhamra) after the expiry of their treaties. That seems about right. So, are Muslims not violating the Islamic Ahkam by having Mu'ahadat signed with Mushirikin? That too, being not in fixed terms. What are the views on the matter by the Madhaahib? Is this only done strategically and by breach of Ahkam for the greater purpose of calling more people to Islam?

So I follow the shafii madhab for most stuff but I have a problem with incontince for after peeing and in Maliki madhab says that it doesn’t break wudhu and if I follow this would this be considered talfiq or is it okay

Did Zahiri Madhab originate in the Salaf era? Can we follow some rules?

When praying the fard of Dhuhr/Zuhr and Asr salah in congregation behind the imam, the imam recites everything silently. According to some websites, it is **[makrooh tahrimi](http://www.questionsonislam.com/node/13057)** to recite anything behind the imam during salah in the Hanafi madhab, be it silent or loud prayer. However, they also state that reciting surah Fatiha during congregation is wajib in the Shaf'iee madhab. Why do the 2 madhabs have such opposite rulings for this incidence? **Question:** Do the muqtadis need to recite anything while praying behind the imam, i.e. surahs, salawat, dua e masura, whether it is during silent salah or loud salah? Please answer from all 4 madhabs view in this with evidence to support each claim

Did ash shafaee say imam layth bin saad is better imam than imam malik? If imam layth bin saad is better than imam malik why don't we have laythi school of jurisprudence?

If the holy book is one and it has mentioned of how to pray, why do we have the variations of prayer between the Islamic scholars Hanafi,Maliki,Shafi'i,Hanbali,Zahiri Why is there a difference of so much between the beliefs and prayers,fasting of the above islamic scholars ? What is the universal way of praying the regular Salat, Jummuah, Eid ,Bakrid prayers ?

Whenever I searched about the issue of the permissibility of a woman leading a prayer, I find that many people cite al Tabari as having given a verdict that women can indeed lead the prayer. But I never found a source for this claim, in his own books or with a chain of narration. Did Imam al Tabari really say a woman can be the imam of a prayer?

Why does the Shafi'i Madhab permit killing all non Muslim adult males during Jihad? Is it just because of their disbelief? Isn't that too cruel? **Bidayat al-Mujtahid** Ibn Rushd writes: > They disagreed about the case of hermits cut off from the world, the > blind, the chronically ill, the old who cannot fight, the idiot, and > the peasants and serfs. ... **According to al-Shafi'fs most authentic** > **opinion, all of these categories (of people) are to be put to death.** > > The Distinguished Jurist's Primer Vol. 1 p. 458 translated by Imran > Ahsan Khan Nyazee Ibn Rushd writes elswhere: > The basis for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the > specificity in some traditions with the general implication of (some > verses of) the Qur'an, and also the generality of the authentic saying > of the Prophet (God's peace and blessings be upon him), "I have been > commanded to fight mankind until they say, 'There is no God but > Allah.'" The words of the Exalted, "Then, when the sacred months have > passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them", **imply the slaying** > **of every nonbeliever** **whether or not he is a monk**, and so does the > saying of the Prophet (God's peace and blessings be upon him), "I have > been commanded to fight mankind until they say, 'There is no God but > Allah'". > > The Distinguished Jurist's Primer Vol. 1 p. 458-459 translated by > Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee **Al-Hidayah** > A woman, minor, enfeebled old man, an invalid, and a blind man are not > to be killed. ... **Al-Shafi'i (God bless him) goes against our opinion** > **in the case of the enfeebled old man, the invalid, and the blind. The** > **reason is that permitted killing in his view is based upon unbelief** > > Al-Hidayah Vol. 2 p. 293 translated by Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee **Reliance of the Traveller** > **It is permissible to kill old men ... and monks.** > > Reliance of the Traveller o9.10 translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller **Follow Up Question** Does this mean that not all non combatants are impermissible to kill?

I spent 30 minutes looking for evidences for a statement i heard. The statement is : > Abu Hanifa said aqeeqah *(sunnah of sacrificing animals to withdraw new born as mortgage from Allah)* is an innovation. Can only find one engineer ali mirza saying abu hanifah believed that. Can someone please quote references. If its true? Ps: the person said abu hanifah believed prayer for rain is innovation and aqeeqah is innovation. Found proof for abu hanifah saying prayer for rain is innovation.

What happens when different madhhabs differ on a ruling, like the Hanafi, Hanbali Maliki and Shafi, does that mean that in each madhhab all of its members agree and on an opinion and in the other madhhab all its members agree on another opinion? For example, if Maliki and Hanbalis differ in something, does that mean all Malakis agree in the opinion or just a few and same with the other madhhab?

As I understand it, Offensive Jihad which is the initiation of warfare against the kuffar based on their rejection of Islam is proven from the Qur'an, Sunnah and the Madhahib of the Salaf: Allah said: >"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.**(9/29)** and one of the 12th Century Judges of Muslim Spain, Ibn Rushd(Averroes) wrote: >They (The Jurists) agreed regarding the people who are to be fought that they are all of the polytheists because of the Words of the Exalted:
"And fight them until Fitnah is no more, and the religion is totally for Allah"(8/39)
**[ [Bidayat al Mujtahid 2/144](https://al-maktaba.org/book/21739/389) ]** however, there is a hadith which in my perspective seems to imply the opposite: >The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Do not desire an encounter with the enemy; but when you encounter them, be firm.
**[ [Sunnah Ref: Sahih Muslim 1741](https://sunnah.com/muslim:1741) ]** because if it is believed that it is an obligation to perform offensive jihad, then it would only be natural that one would want to encounter the enemy so that he can fulfil this obligation. But we are told to not desire that, and I'm not sure how to reconcile these two commands. So far I considered two possibilities: 1. The hadith is from the period of the prophet's life before offensive jihad was commanded, so it would have been abrogated when the order to be at war against the kuffar in general was revealed 2. the hadith was limited in scope to a specific expedition, meaning the prophet and sahaba were about to set off on a specific expedition, but for various and innumerably possible reasons such as muslim military weakness or other circumstances, the prophet wished to avoid a military engagement in that specific time. Since I have no idea which is the case or if at all, I beseech the experts at Islam stack exchange 👍

I was reading this statement by a Scholar That some of them (People of Knowledge) do not differentiate between ikrāh (compulsion) and ḍarūrah (necessity), so they make what is permitted in the case of ḍarūrah to be permitted in the case of ikrāh. This is based upon the ḥadīth of Muḥammad b. Maslamah when he killed Kaʿb Ibn al-Ashraf and based upon the ḥadīth of al-Ḥajjāj Ibn ʿalat There was no Specific people named so i was wondering if there was any references for scholars who held this opinion. Thank you very much

When I was 10/11 I used to pray in both hanafee mosque and shafaee mosque as both were around 200 meters from house in opposite directions. Since as a layman I dont know which madhab to choose. Are the people who say adhering to a madhab is obligatory for layman, are inadvertently asking me to do ijtehad and choose a madhab?

there are some verses in the Quran which clearly prohibit to be in sects or to identify oneself as someone other than a plain muslim, so why do sects insist on existing even though it is clearly forbidden?

The Guardian, a left leaning liberal paper based on the UK reported on the killing of a kidnapping group in Afghanistan. There were four of them and they had abducted a father and son. The kidnappers were killed during crossfire in a rescue mission. The father and son were rescued without injury, though one Taliban fighter and a civilian were injured. The bodies of the kidnappers were hung up on cranes in the main square in Herat with a warning written on paper pinned to their bodies: >Whoever kidnaps others, will end up like this. Mullah Nooriddin Turabi, one of the founders of the Taliban, said: >Everyone criticised us for the punishments in the stadiums, but we have never said anything about their punishments and their laws. No-one can tell us what our laws should be. We will follow Islam and base our laws on the Qu'ran. There are four laws schools (*madhab*) in Islam: Hanafi, Habali, Maliki & Shafi'i. Which one do the Taliban subscribe to and is the deterrence described above prescribed, sanctioned by that law school?

Can a Muslim ask a hujjah to do gtakfir, by declaring kafir a person who denies Quranic concepts such as hijab?

I've read these questions and their answers on consensus (*ijma*), forming a consensus through *ijtehad*, and opinion: - https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/12254/15498 - https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/427/15498 - https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/101/15498 I'm wondering about when there is no ijma among scholars but there are a majority of scholars who, given some hadith, think the ruling should be X and a minority who believe it should be Y, but there is still *some* agreement. To come up with a silly example (because I've seen this several times on different topics and don't want to get answeres sidetracked by a particular topic), the scholars find a hadith that you should eat baked beans on toast on a Sunday. The majority say it means you must only eat baked beans on toast on a Sunday and *only* on Sunday but the minority think it's good but not obligatory on the Sunday bit but say you can also eat it on other days too. What is the responsibility of the non-scholar who follows their madhhab? - Should they go with the majority? - Should they pick from the opinion they think is best? - Should they avoid following either opinion? (if possible) Perhaps there's a mechanism for this I'm unaware of, like the madhhab giving out different levels of advice? Any insight on the matter would be greatly appreciated.