So you derive correctly from the Qur’an and the Sunnah for yourself right?
So how do you understand the hadeeth of the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam when he said “Pray as you have seen me pray?” – Have you seen the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wassallam pray? How do you know how the Prophet sal Allau alayhi wasallam prayed if you have not seen him?
O.K, I agree, the description is within the Ahadeeth, however which Ahaadeeth and did you actually go and find these Ahaadeeth for yourself, or just you just simply pick up the book “Kayfiyyah Salat un-Nabi” i.e. How the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam prayed authored by ‘Abdul Azeez Bin ‘Abdullah Bin Baz and then make taqleed of it?
Do you understand ‘Arabic?
Then how do you go to the Ahaadeeth and determine which ahaadeeth are strong, good, weak and fabricated? Or is it a case of Simon says? or better yet – Albaani says? Which, needless to say, would again be taqleed.
O.k, for arguments sake, its coming up to Salah and we have five minutes. We both agree that purification is a pre-requestite for Salah, and yet my taps are not working and my sink is blocked. The only water I have is a sink full of soapy water, a toilet that flushes and a bottle of diluted orange juice. Which one should I purify myself with and why and what is the evidence for that?
The only problem is, the ayah from surat ul-Maa’idah that you have quoted does not desribe the wudu as I and and every Muslim knows it, including yourself. For example do you do wudu in the following order? Do you wash your face then your hands? or do you wash your hands then your face? or is there something we are missing here?
Furthermore, do you when washing your hands do it up to the elbow all in the same action before washing the face? and thirdly, I do not see in the Arabic Qur’an the term wash your feet up to the ankles. What I see is the Arabic “wa-amsahuw bi-ru’usi-kum wa arjulakum” in which wa arjulakum litreally means “your legs”. Do you wash your whole legs before Salah? How is this ayah understood and why? What is the evidence? Remember, theres three minutes left to Salah…tick tock.
If you only knew that the four madh-habs have already compiled all these answers that have left you be-dazzled and struggling to present the masaa’il to my questions sufficently. You see all a Hanafi has to do is put the Qur’an and kitaab al-Athar down on the table and thats the evidences for his madh-hab right there. The same with the Maaliki, all he has to do is put put the Qur’an and al-Muwatta on the table and thats the evidences for his madh-hab right there. The same with the Shaafi, all he has to do is put the Qur’an and Umdat us-Saalik down on the table and thats the evidences for his madh-hab right there. The same with the Hanbali, all he has to do is place put the Qur’an and Umdat al-Ahkaam down on the table and thats the evidences for his madh-hab right there. What we would have done then is proven our evidences for our madh-hab that are strictly Qur’an and Sunnah, and since all four Imaams and their priciples in deriving from the Qur’an and the Sunnah are from the Salaf, we can also boast we are upn the Qur’an and the Sunnah AND the understanding of the first three generations. Can you baost that, or is your argument destroyed?
Today we have the Qur’an, tafaseer, multiple volumes of ahaadeeth and commentary at the click of a button. We are able to reference like never before. Now, your argument is taqleed is wrong and we should follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah by looking up the evidences for ourselves, yet how did the 4th century plus laymen find such evidences and practice them? As they did not have access to Shaykh ul-Islam google.com?
Good answer, they would ask the people of knowledge, I agree a 100% with that. Your only problem now is explaning to me why these people of Knoweledge was upon madh-habs and would teach the laymen the masaa’il from their madh-habs. Can you care to explain this fact.
For example Imaam Quduri was a Hanafi, Imaam Bukhaari was a Shaafi, Imaam Barbahaari was a Hanbali, Imaam Nawawi was a Shaafi, Qadi Iyad ibn Musa was a Maaliki, Shaykh Abd ul-Qaadir, Imaam Abdur Rahmaan ibn al-Jawzi, Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyum al-Jawzi, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali are Hanbalis and Ibn Katheer and Imaam Dhahabi are Shaafi. Can you at least explain why such great scholars did taqleed of the four Imaams? Whereas you claim their actions are wrong?
To conclude, this argument with you my brother, is it best to follow the Salaf and the early scholars who all compiled the masaa’il for each madh-hab and the 1400 years of scholarship and knowledge that has been passed unbroken, or is it better to follow somebody who popped his head up in the 11th century and claimed “hey, the true knowledge of Islam has been lost since the first three generations, follow me or be killed as a mushrik”?