2

Salafism Explained
It is the cherished goal of every sincere believer to follow in the footsteps of the pious predecessors, the Salaf. That is the first three generations of Muslims. The men and women of these three eras were the most accurate embodiments of the sublime teachings of Islam and as such Muslims have always considered their understanding and practice as the standard. The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wa salam) indicated to their unique status in the following saying: The best of my Umma is my generation, then those who follow them, then those who follow them. (Bukhari, Muslim). In our age there has emerged some confusion as to how the average Muslim is to achieve this goal. We say in our age because the way that was adopted throughout most of Islamic history by the masses, and validated as sound by the vast majority of scholars (see below), is for them to follow (taqlid) one of the four famous legal schools1 (Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali). The reason for this was that these four schools were the finest, most rigorous, scholarly, authoritative, reliable and systematic channels by which a layman could access the sacred sources of the Holy Quran and Sunna. It seemed an elementary conclusion: Surely whatever understanding of the teachings of the Quran and Sunna someone could arrive at today, no matter how many Islamic Universities he has gained certificates from, in comparison to any one of the four great Imams, each of whom belonged to the age the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) testified was the best Islamic ages, and each of whom was endorsed as a meticulous authority of Islamic Knowledge by an ocean of other erudite scholars and each of whom had his school finely combed and refined by another array of genius scholars for centuries right up to our own age, it will always be inferior for the difference in the credentials between the two is the like the difference of the heavens and earth. That these four schools were so prestigious is actually a historical fact beyond dispute and even acknowledged by many modern-day Salafi scholars. Where there is a dispute is that according to the vast majority of the leading Sunni scholars, the lay-people are obligated to only use these schools to access the legal material (ie rulings, laws and rules) of the Holy Quran and Sunna, as they themselves are simply not qualified for this immensely important task. The modern Salafi movement and the Ahl-e-hadith group however hold that these four schools are essentially irrelevant and that all the masses need to do is pick up a copy of the Holy Quran and certain books of hadith and just read them and do what they say. This idea that each believer must extract the teachings from the sacred sources himself however is not new. Throughout Islamic History there have been a handful of isolated maverick voices that have advocated this idea. It however has always been restricted to being a mere argument found only in the pages of books. It was never allowed to grow to anything more significant, firstly, because it was opposed by an ocean of Imams and scholars who saw the terrible consequences it would encourage and secondly the Khalifs, using their executive powers, checked it from ever becoming anything more than a quaint intellectual discussion. Thus wherever one travelled in the Muslim world (from around the 9th century onwards) one would only ever find seminaries, courts, masjids and learning circles that adhered to one of the four schools. Then in the 19th century2 as the Khilafah was in its
1

The reader can find out more about the erudtion and intellectual sophistication of these schools and the Imams that developed them by studying a recent book on their lives called, The Four Imams by Abu Zahra. 2 Abu Zahra, Tarikh al-Madhaahib al-Islamiyya, p. 208.

death throes and general decay set in, this idea finally left the books and for the first time ever the theory was going to be applied on a mass level. In fact in some places it gained considerable sway and support. Of course, the vast majority of Muslim scholars and major Islamic institutions, like the thousand year old Islamic university of Al-Azhar in Egypt, have always rejected this idea,3 and it is only due to the absence of a true Islamic State that it gains any influence over unwary isolated Muslims.

This contravention of the thousand years plus Islamic tradition has, and there is no way to deny the reality, led to catastrophic consequences. For example, it is perhaps not surprising that virtually all the extremist Jihadi groups and individuals the world knows today have also been followers of this very school of thought. From the rebels who caused wanton bloodshed in the Grand Mosque of Makka in 1979 to the architects of the attacks on the twin towers in 2001, were all well-known Salafis or salafi-influenced. The blessing of the four great schools was that they ensured no one could play with the verses and ahadith to further their political, worldly or materialistic aims under the guise of religion. Once the reigns of their authority were thrown off and people, who neither had the high-level qualifications or the inner fear of God, were left to their own devices mayhem was unleashed. This is what Salafism gave the Umma in its misplaced zeal to go back to the Quran and Sunna. As if the master scholars who headed the four schools, and their brilliant students after them, were secretly peddling opinions from other than the sacred sources of the Quran and Sunna. The four schools provided the Umma with a unique apparatus to ensure that the Quran and Sunna did not become target practice for every person who knew a smattering of Arabic. Indeed, it is ironic that one of the claims of the Salafis is that the four schools lead to disunity and sectarianism. By flinging open the doors of interpreting the sacred sources to every Muslim, the Umma will fragment in to as many sects as there are Muslims. The toxic fallout from their gross misinterpretations would haunt an already broken Umma for generations and real Islam would become lost in a mass confusion of opinions each one stamped with Quran and Sunna. With the four schools, on the other hand, the whole Umma was and can be soundly united, as each school, in regards to a huge number of legal issues actually hold the same view. Secondly, because the followers of one school know that where the follower of another school differs on some issue, he is not doing so due to his personal desire or as a result of his ignorance, but because he is earnestly adhering to the opinion of a reputable and trustworthy Imam, the feelings of love, respect and toleration (each Muslim must have for another) are kept fully intact. But let us dwell a little more on how exactly the Salafi call leads to the dangerous corruption mentioned above. Let us take some examples to illustrate how this precious religion, the greatest gift to mankind, by rejecting the authority of the four schools can be turned in to a farce. One of the delicate jobs of an expert scholar (mujtahid), amongst other things, is to penetrate to the heart of the laws and determine the legal cause or inner meaning/linguistic indication (`illah or dalaalah) for a ruling. It is an accepted principle if this legal cause or linguistic-indication is absent or present in some other case, the ruling will be likewise. So for example the cause for the prohibition of alcohol is intoxication. The scholars saw that this cause is also found in various drugs thus it follows they too are prohibited according to Islamic law. On the other hand, the jurists observed that the linguisticindication for cutting of the hand of the robber (al-Sariq) was theft from a secure place, like a home, thus they ruled that a person who lifted someone elses property left unsecure in the street, could not have his hand amputated, because the legal cause or meaning is not found that made cutting of the hand necessary.

This is a fact that even proponents of this idea actually admit themselves, see p. 147 of Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, The Evolution of Fiqh, New Revised Edition 3, IIPH, 2006. On p.147, erroneously referring to the four legal schools as sectarian, he writes: But, to this day, the majority of scholars remain firmly bound to sectarian Islam in the form of one of the four madhhabs.

Let us now leave the secure and tranquil territory of the mujtahid scholars and enter the wild-west territory of the salafi-minded Muslim. Such a Muslim may well say Allah Almighty ordered the believers to do ablution before praying thus: O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. [ Sura al-Maida:6]. Now this verse, he may argue, was first revealed to the arabs who lived in very hot tempretures of Arabia and spent their time herding camels etc. It is obvious they would be in no fit state to perform prayer as they reeked of sweat and other smells, so God commanded them to have a thorough wash first. We today live in a time in which we neither herd camels and the weather is mostly cold therefore it goes without saying that wudu (ablution) is not obligatory for us (maadhallah).

Take another example, a person could argue that riba (usury) was forbidden because it was being used to
exploit people and now the interest rate is not so high and is even fixed in some cases, so it is permitted. Similarly, a person may argue Allah talaa forbade Zina because there is a risk that the lineage of a child will become lost through confusion about the identity of the father. Now thanks to science and dna matching we can know exactly who the father is! So in our modern age of technology and science fornication and adultary should be permitted or at the least they are not sinful and Haram! The numbers of such diabolical opinions will be as many as there are Islamic rulings. As one can see this is the virtual destruction of Islam and its immaculate Shariah. This is the reality of what is being faciliated by some Muslims in their misplaced zeal to go back to the Quran and Sunna and to open the doors of Ijtihad (independent judicial reasoning). It was this mayhem the great Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti was referring to when he wrote the following sagacious words:

The difference found in the four Schools in this nation is a huge blessing, and an enormous virtue. It has a subtle hidden wisdom the intelligent are able to grasp, but the ignorant are blind of. I have even heard some of them say: The Prophet a came with one law, so where did the four madh-habs come from? (Jazeel al-Mawahib)

Some salafis have finally realised that their rejection of traditional Islam is simply indefensible. They have thus slowly come with a more sophisticated position which on the face may seem a good sign. This group now says that it is after all necessary for the lay-people to follow the scholars and in particular the four schools. Yes, the same four schools other salafis would revile and consider enemies of the Quran and Sunna.4 They further quickly add that the lay-people however have the option of choosing between schools and modern scholars who may come with a different opinion. Following one Madhab, they say, is not obligatory. This view is also weak and as anyone can see it is actually just another hapless way the pure Religion of Islam becomes open to corruption and enables people to follow their whims and desires. This position necessarily admits that to leave the general masses to interpret the sacred sources by themselves can never be tolerated, which nevertheless is a major improvement and a sign that the Umma is on its way to recovery. What is noteworthy is that they acknowledge the corruption that comes in not obligating Taqlid (following the scholars without knowing the detailed evidences). Once that is accepted, appreciating the reason why scholars went further and obligated for an individual the following of only one school is easy. For without making one school obligatory will lead to similar corruption will reign and especially so in the age of the internet, which has made contacting individuals thousands of miles away, easier than consulting an Imam at the Masjid at the bottom of the road. Thus a person can easily go on surfing the net till he locates someone who will say the unlawful is permitted. This is not just fiction, it is a reality. You have people today who have scholarly qualifications legitimising for
4

For example, Shaikh Nasir al-Din al-Albani in the third edition of his Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim by Al-Mundhiri, on p. 548, compares Hanafi fiqh to the Gospel. In later editions this has been removed.

example, Usury - if its for commercial loans, music, the intermingling of the sexes etc. It was for this corruption the scholars unanimously declared Taqlid of one school to be obligatory. The reader may consult the booklet Understanding Taqlid, also by this writer, for further elaboration. The reader must keep in mind that there are many brilliant scholars present today who meticulously serve the Umma whilst adhering to one particular school. Thus they perform ijtihad and they utilise the mechanisms within their school to help the Umma with the new challenges the modern world throws up. This entails giving Fatawas on new issues that never existed in the beginning of Islam, forensically deducting the rulings from the rich sacred texts, as well as providing authentic legalistic arguments to (if a genuine need exists) to suspend an established ruling in the school or modify it. Whereas this projectingof Islam in the modern age is taking place guided by a

meticulously evidenced methodology (known as usul al-fiqh, developed by genuises of each school5 whose expertise and fear of God was attested to by thousands of other scholars), salafis who deny the idea of schools, possess a fluid and phantom methodolgy that is often no where written down thereby making the chance of subverting the sacred law easier. It is this absence of a rigrously established methodology that has led one of the leading salafi scholars Shaikh al-Albani, for example, to bring forth some of the most bizarre opinions ever heard in the Umma. He is the one who declared in his fataawa that the Palestinians should all leave their land because it is Dar alHarb. He also stated, clearly violating the Ijma on the issue, that there is no Zakah to be paid on trade goods.6 Similarly, in his Adab al-Zafaf, he forbade golden jewellery for women despite the entirety of the Umma permitting it. Likewise he, and an ocean of Salafis with him, forbid the offering of twenty Rakaa`as in the Taravih prayer and consider three Talaqs to constitute only one. All these examples are the result of a flaw in methodology. One can clearly see, for example, that Ijma (consensus of the Umma) is not being considered a proof. But all four Imams and the scholars of Islam genrally have always considered Ijma as a separate independent binding evidence in Islamic law and meticulously upheld it. In the salafi case it is embraced and cited in some places and unceremoniously ignored in many.
The truth is that the Salafi movement, whichever form it takes, gets away with confusing the unawary mainly because people are detached from their incredibly sophisticated classical scholarly heritage. The four schools represented de facto Sunni Islam. When one returns to the works of the leading later Imams, one finds that they confirm the position articulated in this essay was the postion of the entire Umma. The Ummas elect accutely grasped the above danger in allowing the layman, or the novice, to interpret the sacred sources. They thus, as time went on, agreed by consensus that the layman must adhere to one of the four schools in the matter of implementing the rulings of the religion and this was the best and safest way for them to follow the Salaf. In this short work we wish to present the reader with quotations from a number of unquestionable Islamic authorities in Islamic Intellectual history. These quotations will make it clear that the Umma and its scholars in unison agreed that the masses must adhere to one of the four schools. The final choice is simple and stark. Either the majority of the scholars of Islam, who unequivocally endorsed the following of the four schools, had misled the Umma in the way they were to practise Islam and follow the Salaf or rather it is the cadre of modern reformers who have erred.

What the Scholars Say

The principles these scholars set out related to the Arabic language, use of analogy (qiyas), hadith etc. In much of the principles they concur and differ on some issues. This systematic and authoratative methodoloy is what created unity in the Umma and engendered a deep respect and appreciation amongs the scholars for the scholars of another of the schools. 6 Tamaam al-Minna, p.363, Fifth Edition, Dar al-Rayaah, 1998.

Imam Rajab al-Hanbali writes in his book: Refutation of anyone who follows other than the four schools: that is the Mujtahid, assuming his existence, his duty (Farduhu) is to follow what becomes apparent to him of the Truth. As for the non-Mujtahid his duty is taqld. Elsewhere having indicated in the latter the rarity of the lofty status of ijtihd, he states: As for all other people who have not reached this level (of ijtihd), it is not allowed (l yasauhu) for them but to do taqld of these Four Imams and to submit to that which the rest of the Ummah submitted to. (Majmoo al-Rasail Ibn Rajab, vol.2 p. 626 and p.624 respectively).

Imam Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi states in Al-Bahr al-Muhit: There has been established a consensus amongst the Muslims that the truth is restricted to these (four) schools. This being the case it is not permitted to act upon an opinion from other than them. Nor is it permitted for ijtihd to occur except within them (i.e. employing their principles (that is the tools of interpretation). (vol.6 p.209) Imm Shams al-Din Dhahab (673-748 AH) writes in Siyar Alam al-Nubal under Ibn Hazm Zhirs comment: I follow the truth and perform ijtihd, and I do not adhere to any madh-hab, I say: yes. Whoever has reached the level of ijtihd and a number of imms have attested to this regarding him, it is not allowed for him to do taqld, just as it is not seeming at all for the beginner layman jurist who has committed the Qurn to memory or a great deal of it to perform ijtihd. How is he going to perform ijtihd? What will he say? On what will he base his opinions? How can he fly when his wings have not yet grown? (Vol.18, Pg.191).

Imam al-Haramayn Abu al-Mali Abd al-Malik bin Yusuf al-Juwayni (419-478 AH) writes in his book Al-Burhan: The expert scholars have agreed that it is not permitted for the masses to follow the schools of particular companions (ajmaa al-Muhaqqiqun ala annal-Awwam laysa lahum an yataalaqu bi-Madhhib Aayan al-Sahabah). Rather they are obligated (alayhim) with following the schools of the (four) Imams who thoroughly investigated and researched, who compiled the chapters (of Fiqh) and mentioned the circumstances of the rulings. (Vol. 2, P. 1146).
Imam Ahmad al-Nafrawi in his famous commentary of the Risalah of Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, entitled, Al-Fawkih al-Dawni, also confirms that the Ijma (consensus) of the scholars has been established that Taqld Shakh7 is obligatory, that is a Muslim must follow only one of the four schools: The consensus of the Muslims has been established upon the obligation (Wujub) of following one of the four Imams today; Abu anfa, Malik, Shafi and Ahmad- May Allah be pleased with them What we explained before, in terms of the obligation of following one of the four Imams, is in relation to those who do not possess the capability of performing ijtihd. (vol.2 p.574, Bab Fi al-Ruyah wa al-Tathub, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1st Edition, 1997).

Imam Al-Jall Shams al-Din al-Mahalli writes in the commentary of the Shafi text Jam alJawami`: And the soundest position (wal-Asahh) is that it is obligatory (yajibu) for the nonscholar/layman and other than him of those (scholars) who have not reached the rank of ijtihd, adherence of one particular school from the madh-habs of the Mujtahid Imams (iltizam madh-hab Muayyan min madhib al-Mujtahideen) that he believes to be preferable to another school or equal to it. (Kitab al-ijtihd, p.93).
7

Taqlid Shakshi means following one specific Imam only from the four. More on this can be found in the authors work: Understanding Taqlid- Following One of The Four Great Imams.

Imam midi, the great authority in the principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, writes in Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam: The layman and anyone who is not capable of ijtihd, even if he has acquired mastery of some of the disciplines (Ulum) related to ijtihd, is obligated (yalzimuh) with following the positions of the Mujtahid Imams and taking his juristic opinions and this is the view of the experts from the scholars of the principles (Al-Muhaqqiqin minnal-Usulyyin). It was the Mutazila of Baghdad who prohibited that except if the soundness of his ijtihd becomes clear to him. (vol.4, p.278). Imam Ala al-Din al-Mardawi, the famous Hanbali jurist, in his major Juristic compendium AlInsaf, cites the statement of the famous scholar Imam Al-Wazir ibn Hubaira (died 560 ah): Consensus has been established upon taqld of every one of the Four Schools and that the truth does not lie outside of them. Vol.11 p.169 (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah). Shaikh al-Islam Ahmad Ibn Hajr al-Haytami writes in Tuhfa al-Muhtaj fi Sharh al-Minhaj: The claim the layman has no madh-hab is rejected, rather it is necessary (yalzamuhu) for him to do taqld of a recognised school. (As for the claim: scholars did not obligate following one school), that was before the codification of the schools and their establishment. (Vol.12 p.491-Kitab al-Zakah).

Imam Sharani, an undisputed authority in the Shafi school, writes in Al-Mizan al-Kubra: You (O student) have no excuse left for not doing taqld of any madh-hab you wish from the schools of the four Imams, for they are all paths to Heaven (p.55 vol.1). Imam Nawawi, the famous Shafi scholar and author of Riyad al-Salihin, writes in Al-Majmu Sharh Al-Muhadhdhab: The second view is it is obligatory (yalzimuhu) for him to follow one particular school, and that was the definitive position according to Imam Abul-Hassan (the father of Imam al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni). And this applies to everyone who has not reached the rank of ijtihd of the jurists and scholars of other disciplines. The reasoning for this ruling is that if it was permitted to follow any school one wished it would lead to hand-picking the dispensations of the schools, following ones desires. He would be choosing between Halal and Haram, and obligatory and permissible. Ultimately that would lead to relinquishing oneself from the burden of responsibility. This is not the same as during the first generations, for the schools that were sufficient in terms of their rulings for newer issues, were neither codified nor widespread. Thus on this basis it is obligatory for a person to strive in choosing a madh-hab which alone he follows. (Vol.1 p.93). Shaikh Salih al-Sunusi writes in Fath al-Alee al-Malik fil-Fatwa ala madh-hab al-Imam Malik: As for the scholar who has not reached the level of ijtihd and the non-scholar, they must do taqld of the Mujtahid And the most correct view is that it is obligatory (wajib) to adhere to a particular school from the four schools (p.40-41 Section on Usul al-Fiqh).

Imam Ahmad al-Wanshirisi records the following fatwa in his famous twelve volume Maliki compendium called, fatw, Al-Miyar al-Murib an fatw ahl al-Ifriqiyya wa al-Andalus wa alMaghrib: It is not permitted (l yajoozu) for the follower of a scholar to choose the most pleasing to him of the schools and one that agrees the most with him. It is his duty to do taqld of the
8

Imam whose school he believes to be right in comparison to the other schools. (vol.11 p.163-164). Imam Qurtubi, in one of the most authoritative juristic commentaries of the Holy Quran, Al-Jami li-ahkam al-Quran, commenting on verse 7 in Sura Anbiya, writes: The scholars did not disagree that it is obligatory for the non-scholars (al-mah) to do taqld of their scholars and they are meant in the verse: Ask the people of Remembrance if you do not know. And the scholars by consensus (Ajmaoo) stated it is necessary (l budda) for he who is unable to see to do taqld of someone else who will tell him the direction of the Qiblah, if it becomes difficult for him. Similarly, one who does not possess knowledge or insight of what the Deen teaches, then it is necessary (l budda) for him to do taqld of that scholar who does. (p.181 vol.11). Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Lakhnawi writes in his Majmuat al-fatw, after mentioning the various views of the scholars on taqld: On this subject the soundest view is that the lay-people will be prevented from such (choosing) of different opinions, especially the people of this time, for whom there is no cure but the following of a particular madh-hab. If these people were allowed to choose between their madh-hab and another, it would give rise to great tribulations. (vol.3 p195).

What these statements make amply clear is that taqlid of a reputable scholar is itself necessary and secondly that each Muslim is duty-bound to learn the detailed rulings in the various spheres of practice according to one school exclusively to save him from the great sin of following desires. It is possible that a scholar today may believe (or others believe it about him) that he is able to transmit Islam and the views of the Salaf (the first three generations), more authentically, faithfully and accurately than the four Imams since he has the works of all four in front of him. This is a gross mistake, for not only were the capabilities of the four Imams vouched for by thousands of other eminent scholars who came after them, they all8 also belong to the age regarding which the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) testified as being the best of Islamic ages. Neither of these two credentials are found in any latter-day reformist scholar.

There are many other issues related to this topic which cannot even be skimmed over in this short essay. Some of them however have been dealt with in the authors work: Understanding Taqlid.

And Allah taala alone grants success. Muhammad Sajaad, 14/Ramadan/1433

Except for Imam Ahmad ra whose time comes just after the age of the Tab` Tabi`een.