Appendix 11:
Agreement of the Four
Madh-habs
The Book of Purification
The Book of Prayer
Importance of Prayer & Ruling of its Abandonment
Facing the Qiblah & Intention in the Prayer
Etiquettes of Walking to Prayer and its Description
Description of Prayer Continued
Description of Prayer Continued
Description of Prayer Continued
Pillars and Mandatory Acts of Prayer
Two Prostrations of Forgetfulness
Supererogatory (Voluntary) Prayers
Supererogatory (Voluntary) Prayers Continued
Times of Prohibition of (Supererogatory) Prayer
Congregational Prayers & Latecomers
Jumu'ah (Congregational Friday) Prayer
The Book of Funerals
The Book of Fasting
The Book of Hajj and 'Umrah
Book of Zakat
The Book of Selling and Commercial Transactions
Introduction & Commercial and Selling
Selling of Primary & Secondary Commodities
Cancellation Options in Transactions
Cancellation Options Continued
Debt Transference & Guarantor-ship
Mortgaging & Security Deposits
Partnership & Companies Continued
Reviving Barren Lands & Per-Job Wage
Lost and Found Property & Foundlings
Prize Money & Deposits for Safekeeping
The Book of Bequests
The Book of Inheritance
The Book of Marriage
The Book of Divorce
The Book of Sadaq
The Book of Dhihar
The Book of Lian
The Book of Foods
Book of Fatal and Non-Fatal Assault
The Book of Indemnities
The Book of Hudood
The Book of Jihad
The Book of the Judiciary
The Book of Testimonies
Appendix
Glossary
Appendix 11: Agreement of the Four Madh-habs
The four madh-habs in Sunni Islam are intellectual accomplishments that every Sunni Muslim should feel proud of. Thousands of scholars, in various disciplines and through the generations, contributed to the making of these intellectual wonders, and the vast majority of Muslim scholars recommend that the student of knowledge first be instructed in one of the four schools. The authority of the four madh-habs and our need for them are as clear as the sun in the middle of a summer day, as the Arabic proverb goes. Moreover, the truth rarely diverges from that which is agreed upon by the four madh-habs. Imam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) stated:
As for one who says, “I am not bound by any of the four imams,” if he means he is not bound by a particular one of them as opposed to the rest, then he has spoken well; in fact, this is the correct of the two [known] positions. However, if he means that he is bound by none of them and that he disagrees with them all, then surely he will be wrong most of the time because in the vast majority of the [laws of] Sharia, the truth does not diverge from their positions. Only in a few cases did people disagree on whether the truth could be different from their positions. 1838
Any attempt to belittle all, some, or any of the four madh-habs is an assault on the Ummah and its heritage; nevertheless, it is essential to have a balanced understanding regarding them. The Ummah cannot afford to swing with the pendulum of extremism. ‘Anti-madh-habism’ is wrong, but it cannot be blamed for all the ailments of our Ummah, as some ideologues on the opposite end of the spectrum may believe. This simplistic reduction of complex
1838. Badr ad-Deen al-Ba‘li. Mukhtaṣar al-Fatâwâ al-Miṣriyah. Cairo: Maṭba‘at as-Sunnah al-Muḥammadiyah, 1/61.
phenomena is not new to human thinking, but it seems contrary not only to the facts but indeed to the very concept of causation. After all, who would have the audacity to claim that our Ummah was thriving before the advent of this ‘new phenomenon’? This is not only about defeat by external forces, but also about backwardness, inner conflicts, and ta‘aṣṣub (zealotry), whether interdenominational or inter-madh-habi. The verifying scholars used to complain about the conditions of fiqh and the fuqahâ’ in their times. The stagnation within the madh-habs resulted in a divide between fiqh and the needs of the people, and this pushed the leaders, long before the colonial era, to legislate arbitrarily. And why is it that countries and communities that were not affected by this ‘new phenomenon’ are not faring better than those that were affected?
Having said that, this is not a discussion of the importance of the legacy of the four madh-habs; nor is it an attempt to referee between the contestants on the two ends of the spectrum concerning them. The discussion here is about the status of positions outside of those they agreed upon, which many Muslim scholars treat as a de facto binding consensus. Some scholars have gone as far as to claim that there is a consensus, at least in the spheres of fatwa and judging, that no scholar may take a position outside that of the four schools. 1839 According to Dâr al-Iftâ’ al-Miṣriyah (the Egyptian fatwa agency), this agreement is subject to change over time, as people’s customs change and other positions come to be accepted and trusted, and it is also subject to enforcement
1839. Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytami. Tuhfat al-Muhtâj fee Sharḥ al-Minhâj. Cairo: al-Maktabat at-Tijâriyat al-Kubrâ, 10/109. Retrieved from Shâmilah [computer software].
by the state. 1840 The most that someone can say about this agreement (and it is extremely difficult to establish that they agreed that the agreement of the four madh-habs is binding) is that it was a procedural decision that may have had some merit at some point but is in no way a binding consensus that the Ummah must abide by indefinitely. It is interesting to note that earlier scholars disagreed not about whether a mujtahid was obliged to follow the opinion of another mujtahid, but about whether he or she was permitted to do so. Imam Abu Ḥaneefah (may Allah have mercy on him) allowed it, whereas Imam ash-Shâfi‘i (may Allah have mercy on him) prohibited it, arguing that the level of certainty attained through the mujtahid’s own ijtihâd must exceed that which could ever be attained through someone else’s ijtihâd. 1841
Whenever we seek a ruling on a particular issue, it is either a contemporary matter or one that has been previously addressed. If it is new, there is no existing position from the four madh-habs except through takhreej (a form of analogical deduction based on a position in the madh-hab), which usually offers some flexibility and is not particularly binding. If it is a matter that has been addressed previously, then the question is whether a position outside of the agreement of the four madh-habs may have any merit.
While it is commendable for Muslims to be cautious about positions that conflict with the agreement of the four imams, we should not completely rule out the possibility that the truth may be outside of their agreement. Abu al-Khaṭṭâb
1840. ‘Following the Four Schools of Law and the Ruling of Being at Variance with Them’ اتباع المذاهب الفقهية الأربعة وحكم مخالفتها. (n.d.). Retrieved August 14, 2017, from http://www.dar-alifta.org/AR/ViewFatawaConcept.aspx?ID= 187
1841. See ‘Izz ad-Deen ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abdus-Salâm. Qawâ‘id al-Aḥkâm fee Maṣâlih al-Anâm. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyah, 2/160.
(may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 510 AH) stated in his book at-Tamheed fee Uṣool al-Fiqh:
The proofs on the [authority of] consensus do not pertain to them (the agreement of the four imams), because they are among the believers of the Ummah, and their status as imams does not change the rulings of ijmâ‘. 1842
Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) held the same opinion and mentioned several instances where some followers of the four imams had dissented from their agreement. 1843 While Imam al-Qarâfi (may Allah have mercy on him) was one of the scholars who reported from Ibn aṣ-Ṣalâḥ (may Allah have mercy on him) the agreement on following one of the four madh-habs, he said in a different place (and context) that a consensus was established during the time of the Companions (RAHUM) that whoever converts to Islam may ask any of the scholars and is not bound to ask certain ones, so that one who has asked Abu Bakr and ‘Umar may still ask Mu‘âdh and Abu Hurayrah and others. Imam al-Qarâfi challenged anyone who claimed that this consensus had been revoked, calling on them to produce evidence. 1844 Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytami ash-Shâfi‘i (may Allah have mercy on him) explained that it is permissible for a scholar to follow an ijtihâd that is outside the four madh-habs as long as it is well documented and its conditions and all necessary details are
1842. Abu al-Khaṭṭâb al-Kallodhani. At-Tamheed fee Uṣool al-Fiqh. Makkah: Markaz al-Baḥth al-‘Ilmi wa Iḥyâ’ at-Turâth al-Islâmi, 1406 AH/ 1985 CE, 3/281.
1843. Majmoo‘ al-Fatâwâ by Ibn Taymiyah, Taqi ad-Deen Aḥmad, Cairo: Maktabat Ibn Taymiyah, 20/10.
1844. al-Qarâfi. Sharḥ Tanqeeḥ al-Fuṣool. Cairo: Sharikat aṭ-Ṭibâ‘at al-Fanniyah, 1973, p. 432.
known; he attributed this opinion to Imam as-Subki (may Allah have mercy on him). 1845 Imam an-Nafrâwi al-Mâliki (may Allah have mercy on him) attributed this position to some of the verifying scholars – without limiting the permissibility of taqleed (following the juridical opinions of a mujtahid) to the scholars. 1846
What should be clear is that there is no legitimate evidence for the notion that the agreement of the four madh-habs establishes consensus, and if it does not, then there are no grounds for considering their agreement an additional source of legislation. Still, their agreement should serve as a warning sign for the mujtahid to proceed with caution and for the non-mujtahid to stop. As mentioned above, even those who did not allow the public to follow other than one of the four madh-habs recognized that the truth might exist outside their agreement, and they allowed the faqeeh to adopt a position outside it. 1847 As mentioned in our discussion on the usefulness of weak positions, they also allowed the use of unauthorized positions in the madh-habs when there was a valid reason.
In our times, what can be done to protect people from the chaos of unregulated fatwas? We must 1) emphasize the guidelines that must be followed in mainstreaming positions that are counter to the agreement of the four madh-habs, and 2) advance the cause of collective ijtihâd, which confers
1845. Ibn Ḥajar. Tuḥfat al-Muḥtâj. Cairo: al-Maktabat at-Tijâriyah, 1983, 1/47.
1846. an-Nafrâwi. Al-Fawâkih ad-Dawâni. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, 1995, 2/356.
1847. See ‘Abdul-Ra’oof al-Munâwi (d. 1031). Fayd al-Qadeer. Cairo: al-Maktabat al-Tijâriyat al-Kubrâ, 1/210.
greater validity on new positions, as Shaykh Muṣṭafâ az-Zarqâ remarked when he talked about reopening the gates of ijtihâd. 1848
An example of collective ijtihâd mainstreaming the fatwa of a mujtahid is Ibn Taymiyah’s position on the composite threefold divorce. He counted it as one divorce, contrary to the authorized view in the four madh-habs. The adoption of this position by fatwa agencies in many Muslim countries, including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, has conferred mainstream acceptance upon it. In summary, one may say that the mainstreaming of positions that are outside the agreement of the four madh-habs should be contingent upon their validation by collective ijtihâd or their acceptance by a large group of verifying scholars.
1848. Muṣṭafâ az-Zarqâ. Al-Ijtihâd al-Jamâ‘i wa Dawr al-Fiqh fee Ḥall al-Mushkilât. Jam‘iyat ad-Dirâsât wal-Buḥooth al-Islâmiyah, p. 49.
Agreement of the Four Madh-habs
( Page : no 193)