Hayatan Tayyibah

The anti-Taqleed lobby attempts to hoodwink unwary Muslims by asking the question: “Did the Madh’habs exist during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wa sallam) and the Sahaabah (radiallahu anhum)?”

In response it could be asked: Did Bukhari Shareef exist in the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam)? Did the Qur’aan (in the form we have it) exist during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam)? In fact, this very question posed by deviants’, exhibits either their gross ignorance or their deliberate attempt to hoodwink the unwary.

If the madhab did not exist during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) and the Sahaabah (radiallahu anhum), the logical conclusion is that the entire Shar’iah which the illustrious Imaams have expounded is not the Shar’iah taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) and the Sahaabah (radiallahu anhum). This is absurd and preposterous.

All the teachings of the Madhaahib are in fact the teachings of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. Nothing in the Madhaabib conflicts with the Qur’aan and Hadith. The different ways and methods of Ibaadat, etc., which the Madhaabib are applying, are the ways and methods of the Sahaabah which they had acquired from Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam).

The differences were inherited from the Sahaabah and such differences are by Divine Decree, hence Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) said: “The differences of my Ummat is a Rahmat.” Whether anyone understands this fact that ‘Rahmat’ (Mercy) is emanating out of the authoritative differences of the Fuqahah of the Ummat is of no substance. The fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) proclaimed such differences to be the effects of Allah’s mercy is sufficient. Thus, there is nothing detestable in the differences prevailing among the Madhaahib.

These valid and authentic differences do not bring about disunity, as is stupidly asserted by the modernist deviants’. The ignorance of people and their desires are the causes of disunity. While the terms, Hanafi, Shaaf’i, etc. did not exist in the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) and the Sahaabah (radiallahu anhum), the teachings of these Madhabs all existed. While Bukhari Shareef did not exist, the Ahaadith contained in the book did exist. It is, therefore, stupid to pose the question of the Madhabs during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam).

There is unity in this diversity. Deen is the product of wahi, not the result of man’s desires. Since the hawa (desire) cannot find free-play within the chains of Taqleed the aim of the deviates is to refute the concept of Taqleed. But breaking the chains of taqleed leads only to enchain oneself with the shackles of the nafs.