Bismillahi Al-Rahmani Al-Rahim

This Is Not Hanbali Fiqh

Q
Are there any good good of Hanbali Fiqh in Urdu?  I did see your posts on Hanbali books in English.  Are there are articles on the deep hanbali fiqh issuesonline?  There is a site http://www.fiqh.net I know the author and he is Hanbali.

And from abother:

Regarding the book Fiqh Made Easy by Dr. Salih al-Sadlan and translated by Jamaal al-Din M. Zarabozo, I have seen the book and to my recollection it doesn't strictly follow the Hanbali positions on all matters but most probably follows the Hanbalis most of the time

A
al-salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

I know nothing about book in Urdu.

After reading the pages concerning Prayer, I really do not see how http://www.fiqh.net is Hanbali. There's quite a bit more to Hanbali fiqh than making a collage of hadiths you like and pulling out a few quotes from scholars.

What follows are just a few comments. If it gets lengthy, please be sure to read the final paragraph.



Fiqh of Salah Volume #2
<<Shaikh AbdulAziz Bin Abdullah Bin Bazz [Rahamahullah], quotes in his book "Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam)'s manner of performing prayers" "To turn one's face and whole body towards the Ka'aba, intending by heart to perform the prayer which he wants to fulfill, whether it is an obligatory prayer or a supererogatory prayer, the worshipper in all cases, should not pronounce his intention openly, because neither the Prophet nor his companions used to utter the intention for prayer. Thus, pronouncing the intention for prayer in audible voice is a heresy and an illicit action.>>

This last phrase, "pronouncing the intention for prayer in audible voice is a heresy and an illicit action," is absolutely unacceptable. This is nothing short of a pronouncing apostasy, and on quite a large number of Muslims at that. It is impossible for me to confirm what Sheikh Ibn Bazz (may Allah be merciful with him) said, but I'm quite sure that what he said is that the person is an innovator (mubtadi`). The problem with accusing someone of heresy is that, well: if you're wrong, you're it.

The most that can be said for this issue is that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not do it. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah be merciful with him) considers this an innovation (bid`a), but this is his personal opinion, and it is something that the scholars after him mention when listing opinions contrary to the one used for fatwa. In Al-Furu`, Ibn Muflih considers pronouncing it to the correct position (1:129), Al-Ba`li says in Kashf Al-Mukhaddarat that slips of the tongue cause no harm (1:125), as did Mar`i bin Yusuf in Dalil al-talib and Al-Taglabi in Nail al-ma'arib (1:62). And Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudama tops them all in first saying "...whenever he believes it in his heart, it suffices-- even if he did not pronounce it with his tongue" (Al-Mughni (1:101)).

Pronouncing intention is something that the scholars mention as an aide in forming the intention itself. People who have clear intention have no need for this. But people who have a ton of tashwish, self-inflicted or not, need this.

So, pronouncing it is unlawful ("illicit") puts one beyond the pale of Islam ("heresy")? Hardly. And the Shafi`is agree with the Hanbalis on this one.

And Allah knows best.

Fiqh Of Salah Volume #6
<<Shaikh AbdulAziz Bin Bazz writes in his book of Salah "Then the worshipper raises his head saying "Allahu Akbar" taking a pause similar to the pause between the two prostration; this is called "the pause for rest." It is recommended for the worshipper to do such a pause, but there is no sin if he desists from it. Then the worshipper rises up and stands supporting on his knees, or on the ground if he cannot support himself on the knees, reads the Fatihah (The opening Sura of the glorious Quran) and some other verses of the Quran and do as just as he did in the first Rakaah (unit of prayer).">>

No, he lifts his hands, puts them on his knees, and then stands up; and if there is any difficulty, he can put his hands--palms down--to push himself up. This is what you're find in Al-Raud al-murbi`, Nail al-ma'arbin and every other book of Hanbali fiqh. What the sheikh described above agress with the Shafi`is, but can actually invalidate a Hanbali's prayer.

Fiqh Of Salah Volume #7
<<An other key point to be taken from this hadith is that the practice of a Sahabi or of any pious scholar by itself cannot be taken as proof to be Sunnah or followed without direct instructions that this practice is from Rasulullah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam). Some of the scholars take the practice of Sahaba or great scholars over marfoo Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and indeed this is great error as stated clearly by Ibn 'Umar (Radhiallahu ?n) in the above mentioned hadith.>>

First of all: May Allah be pleased with them on and all.

As for the content:

Really? Ever heard of abrogation? Ever heard of ijma`? Ever heard of reconciling between outwardly incompatible hadiths of the same degree of authenticity? Ever heard of following the fatwa of a Companion (Allah be pleased with them one and all) when no other Companion's objection is known? None of the Imams or their students after them simply turned their back on a rigorously authenticated hadith.

What, pray tell, should we call it when someone picks out one hadith that agrees with them and then ignore everything of equal or even greater weight that disagrees with them? Odd behavior, then the scholars have stated that "employing a piece of evidence is superior to leaving it be" (al-`imal kharan min al-ihmal).

<<It is mentioned din the book of Fiqh of the four Madhahib "According to the Shai'iyyah, one points with the finger only once, when saying "except Allah" in the statement bearing witness. The Hanifiyyah raise the finger in the denial part of the statement (there is no Allah) and put it back down during the confirmation part (except Allah). The Malikiyyah move the finger to the left and right until they finish the prayer. The Hanbaliyyah point with the finger every time they mention Allah, as a reflection of the oneness of Allah, and they do not move it.  This opinion of the Hanbaliyyah is supported by the hadith reported by Abu Dawud "When Rasulullah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) raised his finger, he would move it, supplicating with it" About "supplicating with it", Imaam Tahaawi the well known hanafi Imaam [even though he was not hanbali or maliki but due to his strict adherence to the following of hadith] said, "This is evidence that it was all the way to the end of the prayer." Hence, there is evidence in this that the Sunnah is to continue pointing and moving the finger until the tasleem, for as long as one is supplicating and supplication is until the end. This is the view of Imaam Malik and of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal. Imaam Ahmad was asked, "Should a man point with his finger during prayer?" He replied, "Yes, vigorously." [Mentioned by Ibn Haani in his Masaa'il of Imaam Ahmad, Volume#1 Page#80]. From this, it is clear that moving the finger in tashahhud is a proven sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and it was practiced by Imaam Ahmad, Imaam Malik and other Imaams of the Sunnah.>>

Hanifi: Kind of right, because there are at least three opinions listed in Al-Lubab.

Maliki: Kind of right, because there is at last two other opinions, one of them being that the finger simply points, and a second being that it is raise up and then lowered. And in each of the opinions, it is done slowly for the sake of khushu`, not quickly.

Shafi`i: Kind of right, because the finger is always extended but it is not raised until the phrase of Tawhih, and it then remains raised until the very end.

Hanbali: Kind of right, because he (1) either raise it ONLY when mentioning the phrase "Allah", or (2) just points without moving. This is what you find in Hanbali books authored by Hanbali Imams who were quite aware of that quote attributed to Imam Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him). First saying that the madhhab is not to move and then ending with saying that it is to move continuously, isn't this, like, sort of, you know, self contradictory? None of what was mentioned here proves anything. Where are the hadiths with their sources and a judgment on their veracity? Oh, and even if it were the stronger opinion: the hadiths say "move", not "vibrate".

<<Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbali and the Ahl-ul-Hadith who followed him considered the correct method of Witr to be 2 rakats and then salam and then one rakat this>>

No, they considered this the most superior among several ways that one can pray a three rak`a witr. But if someone prayed like Hanafis, it's acceptable, too. And Imam Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him) listed quite a few numbers of rak`at and various ways to pray each one.

It is very rare to find cases where variations of performing a given action have been transmitted and Imam Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him) says that only one is correct. Saying that one is correct entails that the rest are wrong and invalid. What he typically does is say that they are all correct, but one particular is superior. This is one of the most beautiful aspects of Imam Ahmad's approach (may Allah be pleased with him) and something the madhhab--wa al-hamdu lillah!--retained. And it's also something that many claiming to be Hanbalis usually always [repitition intended] completely lack.

<<...there are many hadith from the Sahih Sita>>

No, al-kutub al-sittah. Only two books are guaranteed by ijma` to be rigorously authenticated. The other four are the source for almost all other authentic hadiths. Calling them "the six sound books" is misleading.

<<In the madhab of Imaam Ahmad the Qunot is after Rukuh as narrated in these Sahih Hadith >>

I don't know about doing qunut after rukuh.

What I do know is that the position in the madhhab is that it is better to do qunut after coming up from ruku` with the hands lifted, but it is still permissible to do it before going down into ruku`. This clearly is not as limited as is put here.

<<According to all the Imaams of Fiqh and the people of hadith Qunoot can be read in any Salah to supplicate for Muslims in need or to ask for the wrath of Allah on Kufar who are persecuting Muslims.  The proof for this can be found in the following ahadith.>>

Kind of. With the Hanbalis it's offensive for anyone other than the Imam [with a capital letter aye] to do this, and then only in the obligatory prayers.



For those of you who found this--and several previous messages where I criticize other people's articles concerning Hanbali rulings--a bit harsh, I invite you to see things from my perspective for a few moments.

The understanding and implementation of the Shari`a as demonstrated by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has been recorded, systematized and then transmitted to us through the madhhahib. For the past seven centuries there have been only four madhhah; that's almost half of Islam's history. This can only be out of some Divine wisdom, just as Ibn Rajab (may Allah be merciful with him) so well demonstrates in his Rebuttal Of Those Who Deviate From The Four Madhhahib. Many scholars (Ibn Taymiyyah included) (may Allah be merciful with them all) have made statements to the effect that it is certain that for a given issue the truth is always to be found amongst the four madhhahib, although we can never be certain in which madhhab it is. So because of this, tampering and misrepresenting the opinions of the Imams and their students runs the risk of tampering and misrepresenting the Sunna itself. Claiming ignorance is not an excuse, since begin graced with knowing that one is ignorant requires one to abstain. Claiming insufficient linguistic skills goes only so far, especially when those "skills" resulted in declaring a good portion of the Umma beyond the pale of Islam. And negligence is inexcusable; when you hand out jelly donuts at work you can be as negligent as you want, but not  when you take on the task of handing out the inheritance of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).

wa al-salamu `alaykum
--musa