*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
{ Sila lawat Laman Hizbi-Net - http://www.hizbi.net }
{ Hantarkan mesej anda ke: [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
{ Iklan barangan? Hantarkan ke [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
PAS : KE ARAH PEMERINTAHAN ISLAM YANG ADIL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate Between Muhammad Sa'id al-Buti and a Leading Salafi Teacher
(c) Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1995
[Nuh Ha Mim Keller:] I will close this answer by translating a
conversation that took place in Damascus between Shari‘a professor
Muhammad Sa‘id al-Buti, and a Salafi teacher. Buti asked him:
Buti: “What is your method for understanding the rulings of Allah? Do
you take them from the Qur’an and sunna, or from the Imams of
ijtihad?”
Salafi: “I examine the positions of the Imams and their evidences for
them, and then take the closest of them to the evidence of the Qur’an
and Sunna.”
Buti: “You have five thousand Syrian pounds that you have saved for
six months. You then buy merchandise and begin trading with it. When
do you pay zakat on the merchandise, after six months, or after one
year?”
Salafi: [He thought, and said,] “Your question implies you believe
zakat should be paid on business capital.”
Buti: “I am just asking. You should answer in your own way. Here in
front of you is a library containing books of Qur’anic exegesis,
hadith, and the works of the mujtahid Imams.”
Salafi: [He reflected for a moment, then said,] “Brother, this is
din, and not simple matter. One could answer from the top of one’s
head, but it would require thought, research, and study; all of which
take time. And we have come to discuss something else.”
Buti: I dropped the question and said, “All right. Is it obligatory
for every Muslim to examine the evidences for the positions of the
Imams, and adopt the closest of them to the Qur’an and Sunna?”
Salafi: “Yes.”
Buti: “This means that all people possess the same capacity for
ijtihad that the Imams of the madhhabs have; or even greater, since
without a doubt, anyone who can judge the positions of the Imams and
evaluate them according to the measure of the Qur’an and sunna must
know more than all of them.”
Salafi: He said, “In reality, people are of three categories: the
muqallid or ‘follower of qualified scholarship without knowing the
primary textual evidence (of Qur’an and hadith)’; the muttabi‘, or
‘follower of primary textual evidence’; and the mujtahid, or scholar
who can deduce rulings directly from the primary textual evidence
(ijtihad). He who compares between madhhabs and chooses the closest
of them to the Qur’an is a muttabi‘, a follower of primary textual
evidence, which is an intermediate degree between following
scholarship (taqlid) and deducing rulings from primary texts
(ijtihad).”
Buti: “Then what is the follower of scholarship (muqallid) obliged to
do?”
Salafi: “To follow the mujtahid he agrees with.”
Buti: “Is there any difficulty in his following one of them, adhering
to him, and not changing?”
Salafi: “Yes there is. It is unlawful (haram).”
Buti: “What is the proof that it is unlawful?”
Salafi: “The proof is that he is obliging himself to do something
Allah Mighty and Majestic has not obligated him to.”
Buti: I said, “Which of the seven canonical readings (qira’at) do you
recite the Qur’an in?”
Salafi: “That of Hafs.”
Buti: “Do you recite only in it, or in a different canonical reading
each day.”
Salafi: “No, I recite only in it.”
Buti: “Why do you read only it when Allah Mighty and Majestic has not
obliged you to do anything except to recite the Qur’an as it has been
conveyed—with the total certainty of tawatur (being conveyed by
witnesses so numerous at every stage of transmission that their sheer
numbers obviate the possibility of forgery or alteration), from the
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)?”
Salafi: “Because I have not had a opportunity to study other
canonical readings, or recite the Qur’an except in this way.”
Buti: “But the individual who learns the fiqh of the Shafi‘i
school—he too has not been able to study other madhhabs or had the
opportunity to understand the rules of his religion except from this
Imam. So if you say that he must know all the ijtihads of the Imams
so as to go by all of them, it follows that you too must learn all
the canonical readings so as to recite in all of them. And if you
excuse yourself because you cannot, you should excuse him also. In
any case, what I say is: where did you get that it is obligatory for
a follower of scholarship (muqallid) to keep changing from one
madhhab to another, when Allah has not obliged him to? That is, just
as he is not obliged to adhere to a particular madhhab, neither is he
obliged to keep changing.”
Salafi: “What is unlawful for him is adhering to one while believing
that Allah has commanded him to do so.”
Buti: “That is something else, and is true without a doubt and
without any disagreement among scholars. But is there any problem
with his following a particular mujtahid, knowing that Allah has not
obliged him to do that?”
Salafi: “There is no problem.”
Buti: [Al-Khajnadi’s] al-Karras, which you teach from, contradicts
you. It says this is unlawful, in some places actually asserting that
someone who adheres to a particular Imam and no other is an
unbeliever (kafir).”
Salafi: He said, “Where?” and then began looking at the Karras,
considering its texts and expressions, reflecting on the words of the
author “Whoever follows one of them in particular in all questions is
a blind, imitating, mistaken bigot, and is “among those who have
divided their religion and are parties” [Qur’an 30:32]. He said, “By
follows, he means someone who believes it legally obligatory for him
to do so. The wording is a little incomplete.”
Buti: I said, “What evidence is there that that’s what he meant? Why
don’t you just say the author was mistaken?”
Salafi: He insisted that the expression was correct, that it should
be understood as containing an unexpressed condition [i.e. “provided
one believes it is legally obligatory”], and he exonerated the writer
from any mistake in it.
Buti: I said, “But interpreted in this fashion, the expression does
not address any opponent or have any significance. Not a single
Muslim is unaware that following such and such a particular Imam is
not legally obligatory. No Muslim does so except from his own free
will and choice.”
Salafi: “How should this be, when I hear from many common people and
some scholars that it is legally obligatory to follow one particular
school, and that a person may not change to another?”
Buti: “Name one person from the ordinary people or scholars who said
that to you.”
He said nothing, and seemed surprised that what I said could be
true, and kept repeating that he had thought that many people
considered it unlawful to change from one madhhab to another.
I said, “You won’t find anyone today who believes this misconception,
though it is related from the latter times of the Ottoman period that
they considered a Hanafi changing from his own school to another to
be an enormity. And without a doubt, if true, this was something that
was complete nonsense from them; a blind, hateful bigotry.”
I then said, “Where did you get this distinction between the
muqallid “follower of scholarship” and the muttabi‘ “follower of
evidence”: Is there a original, lexical distinction [in the Arabic
language], or is it merely terminological?”
Salafi: “There is a lexical difference.”
Buti: I brought him lexicons with which to establish the lexical
difference between the two words, and he could not find anything. I
then said: “Abu Bakr (Allah be well pleased with him) said to a
desert Arab who had objected to the alotment for him agreed upon by
the Muslims, ‘If the Emigrants accept, you are but followers’—using
the word "followers" (tabi‘) to mean ‘without any prerogative to
consider, question, or discuss.’” (Similar to this is the word of
Allah Most High, “When those who were followed (uttubi‘u) disown
those those who followed (attaba‘u) upon seeing the torment, and
their relations are sundered” (Qur’an 2:166), which uses follow
(ittiba‘) for the most basic blind imitation).
Salafi: He said, “Then let it be a technical difference: don’t I have
a right to establish a terminological usage?”
Buti: “Of course. But this term of yours does not alter the facts.
This person you term a muttabi‘ (follower of scholarly evidence) will
either be an expert in evidences and the means of textual deduction
from them, in which case he is a mujtahid. Or, if not an expert or
unable to deduce rulings from them, then he is muqallid (follower of
scholarly conclusions). And if he is one of these on some questions,
and the other on others, then he is a muqallid for some and a
mujtahid for others. In any case, it is an either-or distinction, and
the ruling for each is clear and plain.”
Salafi: He said, “The muttabi‘ is someone able to distinguish between
scholarly positions and the evidences for them, and to judge one to
be stronger than others. This is a level different to merely
accepting scholarly conclusions.
Buti: “If you mean,” I said, “by distinguishing between positions
differentiating them according to the strength or weakness of the
evidence, this is the highest level of ijtihad. Are you personally
able to do this?”
Salafi: “I do so as much as I can.”
Buti: “I am aware,” I said, “that you give as a fatwas that a three
fold pronouncement of divorce on a single occasion only counts as one
time. Did you check, before this fatwa of yours, the positions of the
Imams and their evidences on this, then differentiate between them,
so to give the fatwa accordingly? Now, ‘Uwaymir al-‘Ajlani pronounced
a three fold divorce at one time in the presence of the Prophet
(Allah bless him and give him peace) after he had made public
imprecation against her for adultery (li‘an), saying, ‘If I retain
her, O Messenger of Allah, I will have lied against her: she is
[hereby] thrice divorced.’ What do you know about this hadith and its
relation to this question, and its bearing as evidence for the
position of the scholarly majority [that a threefold divorce
pronounced on a single occasion is legally finalized and binding] as
opposed to the position of Ibn Taymiya [that a threefold divorce on a
single occasion only counts as once]?”
Salafi: “I did not know this hadith.”
Buti: “Then how could you give a fatwa on this question that
contradicts what the four madhhabs unanimously concur upon, without
even knowing their evidence, or how strong or weak it was? Here you
are, discarding the principle you say you have enjoined on yourself
and mean to enjoin on us, the principle of “following scholarly
evidence (ittiba‘)” in the meaning you have terminologically
adopted.”
Salafi: “At the time I didn’t own enough books to review the
positions of the Imams and their evidence.”
Buti: “Then what made you rush into giving a fatwa contravening the
vast majority of Muslims, when you hadn’t even seen any of their
evidences?”
Salafi: “What else could I do? I asked and I only had a limited
amount of scholarly resources.”
Buti: “You could have done what all scholars and Imams have done;
namely, say “I didn’t know,” or told the questioner the postition of
both the four madhhabs and the postion of those who contravene them;
without givng a fatwa for either side. You could have done this, or
rather, this was what was obligatory for you, especially since the
poblem was not personally yours so as to force you to reach some
solution or another. As for your giving a fatwa contradicting the
consensus (ijma‘) of the four Imams without knowing—by your own
admission—their evidences, sufficing yourself with the agreement in
your heart for the evidences of the opposition, this is the very
utmost of the kind of bigotry you accuse us of.”
Salafi: “I read the Imams’ opinions in [Nayl al-awtar, by] Shawkani,
Subul al-salam [by al-Amir al-San‘ani], and Fiqh al-sunna by Sayyid
Sabiq.”
Buti: These are the books of the opponents of the four Imams on this
question. All of them speak from one side of the question, mentioning
the proofs that buttress their side. Would you be willing to judge
one litigant on the basis of his words alone, and that of his
witnesses and relatives?”
Salafi: I see nothing blameworthy in what I have done. I was obliged
to give the questioner an answer, and this was as much as I was able
to reach with my understanding.”
Buti: “You say you are a “follower of scholarly evidence (muttabi‘)”
and we should all be likewise. You have explained “following
evidence” as reviewing the positions of all madhhabs, studying their
evidences, and adopting the closest of them to the correct
evidence—while in doing what you have done, you have discarded the
principle completely. You know that the unanimous consensus of the
four madhhabs is that a threefold pronouncement of divorce on one
occasion counts as a three fold, finalized divorce, and you know that
they have evidences for this that you arae unaware of, despite which
you turn from their consensus to the opinion that your personal
preference desires. Were you certain beforehand that the evidence of
the four Imams deserved to be rejected?”
Salafi: No; but I wasn’t aware of them, since I didn’t have any
reference works on them.”
Buti: “Then why didn’t you wait? Why rush into it, when Allah never
obligated you to do anything of the sort? Was your not knowing the
evidences of the scholarly majority a proof tht Ibn Taymiya was
right? Is the bigotry you wrongly accuse us of anything besides
this?”
Salafi: “I read evidences in the books available to me that convinced
me. Allah has not enjoined me to do more than that.”
Buti: “If a Muslim sees a proof for something in a the books he
reads, is that a sufficient reason to disregard the madhhabs that
contradict his understanding, even if he doesn’t know their
evidences?”
Salafi: “It is sufficient.”
Buti: “A young man, newly religious, without any Islamic education,
reads the word of Allah Most High “To Allah belongs the place where
the sun rises and where it sets: wherever you turn, there is the
countenance of Allah. Verily, Allah is the All-encompassing, the
All-knowing (Qur’an 2:115), and gathers from it that a Muslim may
face any direction he wishes in his prescribed prayers, as the
ostensive purport of the verse implies. But he has heard that the
four Imams unanimously concur upon the necessity of his facing
towards the Kaaba, and he knows they have evidences for it that he is
unaware of. What should he do when he wants to pray? Should he follow
his conviction from the evidence available to him, or follow the Imam
who unanimously concur on the contrary of what he has understood?”
Salafi: “He should follow his conviction.”
Buti: “And pray towards the east for example. And his prayer would be
legally valid?”
Salafi: “Yes. He is morally responsible for following his personal
conviction.”
Buti: “What if his personal conviction leads him to believe there is
no harm in making love to his neighbor’s wife, or to fill his belly
with wine, or wrongfully take others’ property: will all this be
mitigated in Allah’s reckoning by “personal conviction”?
Salafi: [He was silent for a moment, then said,] “Anyway, the
examples you ask about are all fantasies that do not occur.”
Buti: “They are not fantasies; how often the like of them occurs, or
even stranger. A young man without any knowledge of Islam, its Book,
its sunna, who happens to hear or read this verse by chance, and
understands from it what any Arab would from its owtward purport,
that there is no harm in someone praying facing any direction he
wants—despite seeing people’s facing towards the Kaaba rather than
any other direction. This is an ordinary matter, theoretically and
practically, as long as there are those among Muslims who don’t know
a thing about Islam. In any event, you have pronounced upon this
example—imaginary or real—a judgement that is not imaginary, and have
judged “personal conviction” to be the decisive criterion in any
event. This contradicts your differentiating people into three
groups: followers of scholars without knowing their evidence
(muqallidin), followers of scholars’ evidence (muttabi‘in), and
mujtahids.”
Salafi: “Such a person is obliged to investigate. Didn’t he read any
hadith, or any other Qur’anic verse?”
Buti: He didn’t have any reference works available to him, just as
you didn’t have any when you gave your fatwa on the question of
[threefold] divorce. And he was unable to read anything other than
this verse connected with facing the qibla and its obligatory
character. Do you still insist that he must follow his personal
conviction and disregard the Imams’ consensus?”
Salafi: “Yes. If he is unable to evaluate and investigate further, he
is excused, and it is enough for him to rely on the conclusions his
evaluation and investigation lead him to.”
Buti: “I intend to publish these remarks as yours. They are
dangerous, and strange.”
Salafi: “Publish whatever you want. I’m not afraid.”
Buti: “How should you be afraid of me, when you are not afraid of
Allah Mighty and Majestic, utterly discarding by these words the word
of Allah Mighty and Majestic [in Sura al-Nahl] ‘Ask those who recall
if you know not’ (Qur’an 16:43).”
Salafi: “My brother,” he said, “These Imams are not divinely
protected from error (ma‘sum). As for the Quranic verse that this
person followed [in praying any direction], it is the word of Him Who
Is Protected from All Error, may His glory be exalted. How should he
leave the divinely protected and attach himself to the tail of the
non-divinely-protected?”
Buti: “Good man, what is divinely protected from error is the true
meaning that Allah intended by saying, “To Allah belongs the place
where the sun rises and where it sets . . .”—not the understanding of
the young man who is as far as can be from knowing Islam, its
rulings, and the nature of its Qur’an. That is to say, the comparison
I am asking you to make is between two understandings: the
understanding of this ignorant youth, and the understanding of the
mujtahid Imams, neither of which is divinely protected from error,
but one of which is rooted in ignorance and superficiality, and the
other of which is rooted in investigation, knowledge, and accuracy.”
Salafi: “Allah does not make him responsible for more than his effort
can do.”
Buti: “Then answer me this question. A man has a child who suffers
from some infections, and is under the care of all the doctors in
town, who agree he should have a certain medicine, and warn his
father against giving him an injection of penicillin, and that if he
does, he will be exposing the child’s life to destruction. Now, the
father knows from having read a medical publication that penicillin
helps in cases of infection. So he relies on his own knowledge about
it, disregards the advice of the doctors since he doesn’t know the
proof for what they say, and employing instead his own personal
conviction, treats the child with a penicillin injection, and
thereafter the child dies. Should such a person be tried, and is he
guilty of a wrong for what he did, or not?”
Salafi: [He thought for a moment and then said,] “This is not the
same as that.”
Buti: “It is exactly the same. The father has heard the unanimous
judgement of the doctors, just as the young man has heard the
unanimous judgement of the Imams. One has followed a single text he
read in a medical publication, the other has followed a single text
he has read in the Book of Allah Mighty and and Majestic. This one
has gone by personal conviction, and so has that.”
Salafi: “Brother, the Qur’an is light. Light. In its clarity as
evidence, is light like any other words?”
Buti: “And the light of the Qur’an is reflected by anyone who looks
into it or recites it, such that he understands it as light, as Allah
meant it? Then what is the difference between those who recall
[Qur’an 16:43] and anyone else, as long as all partake of this light?
Rather, the two above examples are comparable, there is no difference
between them at all; you must answer me: does the person
investigating—in each of the two examples—follow his personal
conviction, or does he follow and imitate specialists?”
Salafi: “Personal conviction is the basis.”
Buti: “He used personal conviction, and it resulted in the death of
the child. Does this entail any responsibility, moral or legal?”
Salafi: “It doesn’t entail any responsibility at all.”
Buti: I said, “Then let us end the investigation and discussion on
this last remark of yours, since it closes the way to any common
ground between you and me on which we can base a discussion. It is
sufficient that with this bizarre answer of yours, you have departed
from the consensus of the entire Islamic religion. By Allah, there is
no meaning on the face of the earth for disgusting bigotry if it is
not what you people have” (al-Lamadhhabiyya (b01), 99–108).
Buti concludes the story by saying:
I do not know then, why these people don’t just let us be, to use our
own “personal conviction” that someone ignorant of the rules of
religion and the proofs for them must adhere to one of the mujtahid
Imams, imitating him because of the latter’s being more aware than
himself of the Book of Allah and sunna of His messenger. Whatever the
mistake in this opinion in their view let it be given the general
amnesty of “personal conviction.” like the example of him who turns
his back to the qibla and is his prayer is valid, or him who kills a
child and the killing is “ijtihad” and “medical treatment” (ibid.
108).
wassallam.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( Melanggan ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body : SUBSCRIBE HIZB)
( Berhenti ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body: UNSUBSCRIBE HIZB)
( Segala pendapat yang dikemukakan tidak menggambarkan )
( pandangan rasmi & bukan tanggungjawab HIZBI-Net )
( Bermasalah? Sila hubungi [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pengirim: Sidi Shariff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
