Thread by @IMadhhab

[Thread] Below will be a list of points about our Madhhab. We’ll hopefully add onto this thread over the week & in the near future shed more light on each issue. But if you have an immediate question about any of these, feel free to ask or DM.

1. The Shāfi’ī Madhhab over the course of history underwent a few phases. It first starting spreading during ‘Abbāsi Caliphate as the “people’s” Madhhab and not as a state Madhhab unlike the Hanafī and Mālikī Madhhabs which had the support of the state during expansion.

2. The Shāfi’ī Madhhab reached its peak under the Seljūk, Auyyūbī, and Mamlūk empires and lost its stronghold under the Ottomans.

3. Despite the frequent mention of the “‘Irāqīs” and the “Khurasānīs” in books of Shāfi’ī Fiqh, the authors of the Tabaqāt never really dedicated any serious attention to the unique attributes of either group, their methodology, & the factors that lead to their formation. (cont.)

As a result, these terms were rendered merely to that which highlight a reality that existed during a particular period in the school’s history which came to an end with the advent of Fuqahā who combined and fused both methodologies together in their books.

4. The Shāfi’ī Maddhab flourished in ‘Irāq and current day Irān, but during the later stages its presence shifted from those lands to Egypt, Levant, and Hijāz where it proliferated.

5. Like other schools, the Shāfi’ī Madhhab also went through a phase of “refinement” (Marhalah al-Tanqīh). It is a popularly held position in Shāfi’ī scholarly circles that there were two “refinement” stages. The reality is that it was one phase.

6. Given the wide geographical area over which the Shāfi’ī Madhhab has spread and the number of communities that ascribe to it makes it the largest Madhhab in terms of following, second to Hanafīs.

7. The hierarchy of the Shāfi’ī scholars are as follows (six ranks): 1) Mujtahid Mustaqill; 2) Muntasib; 3) Mujtahid Muqayyad (Ashāb al-Wujūh); 4) Mujtahidu-l Fatwā; 5) Al-Nudhhār (who are able to carry out Tarjīh between the opinions of the Shaykhayn); 6) Hafadhatu-l Madhhab.

8. The Ashābu-l Wujūh didn’t just merely convey the opinions of their Imām, rather they contributed and worked towards the development and expansion of the Madhhab with their Ijtihadāt and Takhrijāt and at times even contradicting their Imām with their Ijtihād.

9. The role and contribution of the Shāfi’ī Fuqahā from the fourth, fifth, and sixth ranks was not that of Ijtihād, but one of assembling, organising, revising, refining, and emending; all of which were crucial.

10. One must differentiate between a Qawl of al-Shāfi’ī, the Madhhab of al-Shāfi’ī, and the Madhhab of the Shāfi’iyyah, as not every Qawl of Imām al-Shafi’i is the position of the Shāfi’īs nor is every opinion of the Shāfi’ī Madhhab the direct opinion of the Imām.

11. The first attempts at intra-Madhhab Tarjīh was carried out on the opinions of Imam al-Shāfi’ī himself, which then came to be known as Qadīm and Jadīd.

12. What is al-Qawl al-Qadīm? – That which has been narrated as the opinion of al-Shāfi’ī before moving to Egypt. What is al-Qawl al-Jadīd? – What he himself said whilst in Egypt (so, this means that what he said in Makkah falls under Qadīm).

13. The only way to find the Imam’s Qadīm opinions are via the very early books of the Shāfi’ī Fuqahā as al-Shāfi’īs books from the Qadīm phase are lost.

14. “Al-Umm” is the primary sources for accessing the Jadīd opinions, however the Shāfi’ī Fuqaha didn’t really devote much to it via commentaries, or marginalia, or abridgements. Instead, they directed most of their focus and effort to “Mukhtasar al-Muzanī”. More on this later.

15. The sheer attention “Mukhtasar al-Muzanī” received from the scholars lead the neglect of the Riwāyāt from other students of al-Shāfi’ī besides al-Muzanī to the point where those Riwāyāt were almost lost. (cont.)

Also, because not all of al-Shāfi’ī’s books were in the possession of one particular student or a student’s student this lead to the rise of the “‘Irāqīs” & “Khurasānīs” & lead to them concluding varying opinions as representing the Madhhab. (cont.)

This is also what caused multiple opinions of al-Shāfi’ī to be found for a single issue. [As we’ll expand more in the future: all of those issues have been dealt with and resolved during the “refinement” period, Walhamdulillāh].

16. The blame and guilt which some researchers bring up, that, the Shāfi’yyah directly opposed the explicit text of their own Imām in “al-Umm” doesn’t stand because al-Shāfi’ī’s opinions aren’t restricted to this book.

17. The Madhhab of al-Shāfi’ī is, in reality, one. The Jadīd is really an extension and evolution of the Qadīm and the books of the Jadīd are a reassessment of the books of Qadīm and additions to them.

18. Layth b. Sa’d’s legacy nor his Fiqh had any role to play in al-Shāfi’ī’s Ijtihādāt in Egypt.

19. The Egyptian environment with its social norms and customs had no effect on the Imām’s Ijtihād either.

20. The main reason for the changes in his Ijtihād was due to his thorough and exhaustive reassessment of everything in both Usūl and Furū’.

21. The opinions of Jadīd are the ones upon which the Shāfi’iyyah build and form their school.

22. As for some of the issues in which the Shāfi’iyyah have chosen the Qadīm over the Jadīd - then for those issues there are matching rulings in the Jadīd as well, which in essence means that everything is ultimately based on the Jadīd.

22. The most apparent feature of the books written in the early periods before the years of Tahrīr was that they would mention all the varying opinions of the Imām and the scholars without stating which is the strongest and representative of the Madhhab. (cont.)

They’d either mention one opinion only or mention multiple ones without Tarjīh.

23. The period of Tahrīr began at the hands of the “Shaykhayn”, al-Rāfi’ī and al-Nawawī, but it was kindled by the efforts and contributions of Imām al-Haramyn al-Juwaynī in his masterpiece “Nihāyatu-l Matlab”, (cont.)

and by his student Imām al-Ghazālī in his abridgement and refinement of his teacher’s masterpiece, and also by the contributions of Imām Abū Ishāq al-Shayrāzī. All of this resulted in the following five books which were the “relied upon” before the Shaykhayn: (cont.)

1) Mukhtasar al-Muzanī, 2) al-Wasīt, 3) al-Wajīz, 4) al-Tanbīh, and 5) al-Muhaddhab. The second and third by al-Ghazālī and fourth and fifth by al-Shayrāzī.

24. Imām al-Ghazālī’s “al-Khulāsah” isn’t an abridgement of his “al-Wajīz”, as opposed to popular belief.

25. Due to Imām al-Rāfi’ī’s focus on revising the Maddhab and refining it down to the single relied-upon opinion, every scholar who came after him dedicated themselves to his works & because of the serious need for that type of service and study during that period of the Madhhab.

26. Imām al-Rāfi’ī’s “al-Muharrar” isn’t an abridgement of any particular book, as opposed to what most people say.

27. Al-Nawawī formed very specific nomenclatures whilst working on the varying opinions of al-Shafi’ī & Ashāb al-Wujūh to accurately show where each opinion stood in terms of strength & weakness. Though he wasn’t the 1st to use those words, some of the usages were unique to him.

28. The special attention given to the works of Imām al-Rāfi’ī began early, right after his demise. The focus on his works continued all the way until the emergence of al-Nawawī and then after him until the end of ~ 8 AH.

29. Imām al-Nawawī’s opinion is given precedence over Imām al-Rāfi’ī’s when they differ.

30. The reason why al-Nawawī is given preference over al-Rafi’ī is a combination of the former’s endeavours in the Madhhab’s service, his great interest in Tarjīh, him being very widely read, him being in possession of books that weren’t accessible to others, (cont.)

and the multitude and acceptance of the works penned by him.

31. Contributions of Ibn al-Rif’ah and al-Taqiy al-Subki’s were a completion to the efforts of the Shaykhayn to the extent that their Tarjīhāt were almost put in par with the Shaykhayn’s.

32. The most prominent from those who raised an issue with giving the Shaykhayn precedence over anyone else was al-Jamal al-Isnawī. His contention had an echo until the matter was closed off and fully settled during the time of Shaykhu-l Islām Zakariyyā al-Ansārī during 10 AH.

33. Shaykhu-l Islām Zakariyyā is the leader of the Mutakkhirūn without exception. It was he who took the final step of restricting the preference to the Shaykhayn (al-Rāfi’ī and al-Nawawī) above all others, and all who came after him, including his students, followed him in this.

34. The five scholars who - with their writings and verdicts - are the backbone of the Madhhab in its final form: Shaykhu-l Islām Zakariyyā (926 AH), Al-Shihāb al-Ramlī (957), al-Shīhāb Ibn Hajr al-Haytamī (974 AH), al-Khatīb al-Shirbinī (977 AH), & Al-Shams al-Ramlī (1004 AH).

35. The aforementioned five are the seal of “Al-Nudhhār” (refer to point no. 7).

36. The strong similarity and agreement between the major works of these five luminaries is due to them benefiting from each other’s works and due to some of them being students of the other.

37. The thing that which set apart Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-Haytamī from the rest was the rich knowledge that he cast within his Fiqh books & the meticulousness and accuracy of his research. This was one of the reasons why Shāfi’ī scholars from most lands preferred him.

38. Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-Haytamī was the most significant of those who defended the principle of giving the Shaykhayn precedence over other Fuqahā.

39. Ibn Hajar al-Haytamī and al-Shams al-Ramlī occupied a very large status amongst the later Shāfi’īs as they were from the final two from the era of al-Nudhhar. (cont.)

They were the two at the feet of whom the scholars gathered around the most; Al-Haytamī, the judge of Makkah who had with him both the 'Arab and ‘Ajam amongst whom he unceasingly continued to add depth his works, (cont.)

whilst al-Ramlī was the undisputed Faqīh of Egypt with three hundred scholars around him revising and discuss his book (Nihāyah) with him word by word.

40. Even though Al-Khatīb outlived Al-Haytamī, the latter along with al-Shams al-Ramlī are still considered the last of the five. This is due to al-Khatīb focusing more on teaching the masses and travelling to different lands and teaching therein.

This is not to take anything away from al-Khatīb. Any sane Shāfi’ī knows well the mastery he possessed and of what caliber he was, but we are just pointing out the reason why the other two were given more precedence, nothing more.

41. All the Shāfi’ī Fuqahā who came after the five were either their direct students or students of their students, without exception. And as naturally expected, they made the works and methodology laid out by their teachers to be representative of the Madhhab.

42. Both Ibn Hajar and al-Ramlī, despite being meticulous and critical scholars, did not carry out the role of revising the Madhhab, going through all the positions highlighting the strong from the weak. That was done by al-Rāfi’ī and al-Nawawī.

43. The age of Hawāshī (marginalia) which is commonly painted as the age intellectual weakness and declination wasn’t weak nor was there any declination. It was simply the nature of that era. Those type of works were the most appropriate for the need of that time.

44. That period - which is also wrongly described as the age of intellectual stagnation of Fiqh – was one where the spirit of Fiqh continued to live and thrive. We can see scholars of that time continuing Tarjīh and Tashīh despite the Mu’tamad already being agreed upon. (cont.)

We see many scholars of that period taking up opinions that go against the Mu’tamad.

45. The Mutakkhirūn differed when specifying the Mu’tamad out of the opinions of the generation of scholars before them. Some restricted it to that which Ibn Hajar and al-Ramlī went by, whilst others deemed it to be that which the majority said. (cont.)

The strongest position being that it is what Ibn Hajar and al-Ramlī (the son) agree upon in their respective books Tuhfatu-l Muhtāj and Nihāyatu-l Muhtāj and when they differ, one is allowed to follow any one of the two. (cont.)

That along with the opinions of the authors of the marginalia (Ashāb al-Hawāshi) like al-‘Abbādi, al-Sharawānī, al-Bujuayrimī, al-Shubrāmillisī and al-Kurdī et al, is the Mu’tamad of the Shāfi’ī Madhhab.

46. The varying opinions of the Mutakkhirūn is built on what al-Rāfi’ī and al-Nawawī already said. In other words, they based their positions on the conclusions of those two Imāms, so, when the Mutakkhirūn differ, it’s usually on really intricate and branched-out matters.

47. Based on the above, we can see that the term “Mu’tamad” can sometimes vary on certain issues given that some will follow Al-Haytami’s “Tuhfatu-l Muhtāj” and others al-Ramli’s “Nihāyatu-l Muhtāj”.

48. The contemporary era for the Shāfi’īs is an extension of the previous one, but with less efforts & works dedicated to service of the Madhhab; less books, less Iftā (legal verdicts) based on the Madhhab, less teaching – compared to the previous eras.

49. What’s unique about this era is the critical editions and publications of the primary source books of the Shāfi’ī’s, making it much easier to locate different issues in different works, and also unique as Fiqh is being taught & presented via modern teaching methods.

50. Adhering to the Mu’tamad (official/preponderant position) is Wājib upon the Muftī, the Qādī (judge), and those who ascribe themselves to the school, given the necessary conditions.

51. The Muftī and the Qādī are allowed to rule by other than the Mu’tamad in case of Darūrah (necessity), Hājah (need), or general welfare.

52. The Mutakkhirūn disagreed over the issue of going by other than the Mu’tamad for the sake of a greater benefit, although that which is practiced today is that this is permissible.

53. There are quite a few issues where the later day scholars went against the Mu’tamad for reasons that range from the likes of “needs of the current day and age”, “enriching the spirit of Fiqh” etc, which is a proof that even today there is no stagnation within the Madhhab.

54. Two places where they officially applied Shāfi’ī law in courts in recent times: the Qu’aitiyyah & the Kathiriyyah sultanates in Yemen.

55. Some common reasons for Muftīs and Qādīs ruling by other than the Mu’tamad: difficulty, need, general welfare, the official decree of the government or the ruler.