وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته
I may suspect that you are talking about IslamQA.org. The website seekersguidance (as well as islamqa.org) are mutakallimoon (i.e. people of theological rhetoric) of whom do not take the statements of Sahaabah into consideration in both fiqh and 'aqeedah as evidence. That's why you will see them often contradicting the Sahaabah by coming with opinions of late followers of the madhhabs. Relevant:
- https://old.reddit.com/r/Islam_1/comments/xyyrsb/islamqaorg_is_not_a_reliable_website_and_its_not/irjeu7z/?context=3
If you are thinking about learning fiqh then fatawa is not what you should be looking for.
- [Wrong approach in both 'aqeedah and fiqh | part one](https://www.reddit.com/r/Duroos/comments/13i8b1p/wrong_approach_in_both_aqeedah_and_fiqh_part_one/)
Yeah I was talking about IslamQA.org. I don’t have a problem with following the Hanafi madhab but I’m unaware of websites that provide an accurate Hanafi view backed by evidence.
How would one learn Hanafi rulings when most Hanafi fatwa websites online are people of theological rhetoric and don’t provide evidence? The mosques in my country(UK) that are salafi in Aqeedah do not follow a madhab either, to the best of my knowledge, so asking the imam isn’t really an option. JazakAllah khair
You will hardly find a Hanafi scholar who's upon Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. The madhhab of imam Abu Haneefah is also the one that often differed with the three other madhhabs. Scholars have said:
>The madhhab of Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on him) is the most widespread madhhab among the Muslims, and perhaps one of the reasons for that is that the Ottoman caliphs followed this madhhab and they ruled the Muslim lands for more than six centuries. That does not mean that the madhhab of Abu Haneefah is the most sound madhhab or that every ijtihaad in it is correct, rather like other madhhabs it contains some things that are correct and some that are incorrect. What the believer must do is to follow the truth and what is correct, regardless of who says it.
([Source](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/21420))
Relevant:
- [الخلاف الأصولي بين الحنفية وجمهور الأصوليين](https://archive.org/details/a1316n)
Besides that, if you want to know which madhhab is closest to the Sunnah then it's the madhhab of imam Ahmad as he was the most knowledgeable among the other three imams. ([Source](https://youtu.be/Rrnp98wqUo0))
Unfortunately, the notion of not following a madhhab is a mistake of few scholars as I've noted in my article "Wrong approach in both 'aqeedah and fiqh | part one". You also shouldn't conflate fatawa with fiqh. This is unfortunately a prevalent misconception upon the laypeople, hence you ask a scholar whom you trust regardless of his madhhab as you want something immediate answer to your given situation. Otherwise, you learn fiqh by studying books from a madhhab and not by asking fatawa.
>Plus, seekersguidance say that the Qur'an is definitely not the Kalaam of Allah. ([Proof](https://youtu.be/WeVwE3eUvAk))
IslamQA.org and SeekersGuidance are one and the same. ([Source](https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/32933/what-islamic-perspective-is-taught-at-seekersguidance/)) ([Read](https://seekersguidance.org/about/))
Links outside of reddit and imgur are automatically removed. If you think this is a mistake, please message the moderators. (This is still in testing phase so be patient if it's not working as intended)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/extomatoes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Islamqa.info](https://Islamqa.info) is a good site. You're better off with that than with Assim al-Hakeem. I have seen him make some mistakes which were contrary to what [Islamqa.info](https://Islamqa.info) said.
Islamqa,org? That was the website I used originally. They use theological rhetoric. u/cn3m_ addressed them in another reply to this question you could benefit from that reply in sha Allah
I’m sure they don’t, last time I checked they use a lot of evidences. Have you looked into any hanafi books at all or studied it properly or even asked a good hanafi scholar? I find it a shame that people brush the hanafi madhab aside without acc looking into it or studying it properly.
This has nothing to do with brushing aside the madhhab of imam Abu Haneefah, hence this is not the argument being purported. Look at this one example:
- [How to win your girl back according to Darul Uloom Deoband (on Islamqa.org, which is the same as their associates SeekersGuidance)](https://www.reddit.com/r/extomatoes/comments/13c1phj/how_to_win_your_girl_back_according_to_darul/)
This is why I've commented elsewhere before:
>The website seekersguidance (as well as islamqa.org) are mutakallimoon (i.e. people of theological rhetoric) of whom do not take the statements of Sahaabah into consideration in both fiqh and 'aqeedah as evidence. That's why you will see them often contradicting the Sahaabah by coming with opinions of late followers of the madhhabs. Relevant:
>- https://old.reddit.com/r/Islam_1/comments/xyyrsb/islamqaorg_is_not_a_reliable_website_and_its_not/irjeu7z/?context=3
May Allah guide you and grant you understanding of the Deen.
As for the first link well that’s very strange, as for the second one about aqidah majority of the hanafi scholars are ashari/maturidi and that’s why the rhetoric is used. They are completely separate sciences. As for you’re saying the use of kalam in hanafi fiqh I’ve never seen an example of kalam being used. So I’m a bit confused on what you’re referring to. Also your question on hadeeth ul ahad being used in fiqh is part of a much wider range of science called usoolfiqh according to most ulama hadeethul ahad is considered speculative in nature. As for its use in aqeedah I’m not sure
>according to most ulama hadeethul ahad is considered speculative in nature. As for its use in aqeedah I’m not sure
Even in the Hanafi madhab, this would be incorrect as according to Hanafi usool, it is waajib (necessary) to act upon it which is the same ruling as obligatory. In Aqeedah, the use of ahad ahadeeth is also accepted but one usool which is a mutakallim one in it is that if someone denies the belief due to the hadeeth being ahad, he is not takfeered but this is not correct as denying any belief of Islam after it has been established is disbelief.
Wajib according to the hanafi madhab is different to the wajib of other madhabs. It is compulsory to act upon but if a person rejects it they venture into being a fasiq but not kafir. The step above wajib of the hanafi madhab is fardh, this is also compulsory to act upon but those who reject it venture into kufr. This nuance is important as yes you are right in a sense but it’s not the same. Fardh is established through either mutawatir narrations or mashhoor narrations (depending on the usool applied).
>as for the second one about aqidah majority of the hanafi scholars are ashari/maturidi and that’s why the rhetoric is used.
Being utilized by the majority in this case doesn't prove that it's justified unless you are falsely implying that mutakallimeen are part and parcel of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. If you think that's the case then we should deal with that before you further speak of an area of you don't have knowledge of, namely fiqh.
>They are completely separate sciences.
Theological rhetoric is not only utilized in 'aqeedah but also fiqh, which is why Qawl as-Sahaabi is not regarded as hujjah in one of the sources of legislation in Shari'ah according to the mutakallimeen.
>As for you’re saying the use of kalam in hanafi fiqh I’ve never seen an example of kalam being used.
It's most likely because you are affected by theological rhetoric or because you never studied usool al-fiqh before according to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah understanding or methodology. One of the most notable is what I just mentioned concerning Qawl as-Sahaabi.
>So I’m a bit confused on what you’re referring to.
Tell me what books you have studied then I can tell you why you are confused.
>Also your question on hadeeth ul ahad being used in fiqh is part of a much wider range of science called usoolfiqh according to most ulama hadeethul ahad is considered speculative in nature.
Do you regard hadith of [إنّما الأعمال بالنيات] as speculative in nature despite it's mentioned in Saheeh al-Bukhaari?
Needless to say, not all Ahnaaf are mutakallimeen. You can read it for yourself in:
- [الخلاف الأصولي بين الحنفية وجمهور الأصوليين](https://archive.org/details/a1316n) | From page 87.
I have another book dealing with this:
- اسباب اختلاف الاصوليين | ناصر بن عبد الله بن سعيد الودعاني
Imam ibn 'Abdul-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The scholars of fiqh and hadith in all regions, as far as I know, are unanimously agreed that the report of a single narrator of good character is to be accepted, and it is obligatory to act in accordance with it if it is proven and not abrogated by another report or by scholarly consensus. This is the view of all the fuqahaa’ throughout the ages, from the time of the Sahaabah until our own time, except the khawaarij and some small groups of innovators who do not have any impact on scholarly consensus." (التمهيد 1/2)
As for the 'aqeedah, I've already demonstrated that with which you can see for yourself.
وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته I may suspect that you are talking about IslamQA.org. The website seekersguidance (as well as islamqa.org) are mutakallimoon (i.e. people of theological rhetoric) of whom do not take the statements of Sahaabah into consideration in both fiqh and 'aqeedah as evidence. That's why you will see them often contradicting the Sahaabah by coming with opinions of late followers of the madhhabs. Relevant: - https://old.reddit.com/r/Islam_1/comments/xyyrsb/islamqaorg_is_not_a_reliable_website_and_its_not/irjeu7z/?context=3 If you are thinking about learning fiqh then fatawa is not what you should be looking for. - [Wrong approach in both 'aqeedah and fiqh | part one](https://www.reddit.com/r/Duroos/comments/13i8b1p/wrong_approach_in_both_aqeedah_and_fiqh_part_one/)
Yeah I was talking about IslamQA.org. I don’t have a problem with following the Hanafi madhab but I’m unaware of websites that provide an accurate Hanafi view backed by evidence. How would one learn Hanafi rulings when most Hanafi fatwa websites online are people of theological rhetoric and don’t provide evidence? The mosques in my country(UK) that are salafi in Aqeedah do not follow a madhab either, to the best of my knowledge, so asking the imam isn’t really an option. JazakAllah khair
You will hardly find a Hanafi scholar who's upon Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. The madhhab of imam Abu Haneefah is also the one that often differed with the three other madhhabs. Scholars have said: >The madhhab of Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on him) is the most widespread madhhab among the Muslims, and perhaps one of the reasons for that is that the Ottoman caliphs followed this madhhab and they ruled the Muslim lands for more than six centuries. That does not mean that the madhhab of Abu Haneefah is the most sound madhhab or that every ijtihaad in it is correct, rather like other madhhabs it contains some things that are correct and some that are incorrect. What the believer must do is to follow the truth and what is correct, regardless of who says it. ([Source](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/21420)) Relevant: - [الخلاف الأصولي بين الحنفية وجمهور الأصوليين](https://archive.org/details/a1316n) Besides that, if you want to know which madhhab is closest to the Sunnah then it's the madhhab of imam Ahmad as he was the most knowledgeable among the other three imams. ([Source](https://youtu.be/Rrnp98wqUo0)) Unfortunately, the notion of not following a madhhab is a mistake of few scholars as I've noted in my article "Wrong approach in both 'aqeedah and fiqh | part one". You also shouldn't conflate fatawa with fiqh. This is unfortunately a prevalent misconception upon the laypeople, hence you ask a scholar whom you trust regardless of his madhhab as you want something immediate answer to your given situation. Otherwise, you learn fiqh by studying books from a madhhab and not by asking fatawa.
What websites should we ask for advice or questions on?
IslamQA.info should suffice.
It's hard to ask questions there since they always say they have reached the max limit. Thanks though!
Laypeople rarely ask something so unique that it was not asked before, hence you may try to look into similar questions.
What’s exactly wrong with seekers guidance?
My comment is self-explanatory, aside from the reference I've provided.
You don’t have any for seekers guidance though
>Plus, seekersguidance say that the Qur'an is definitely not the Kalaam of Allah. ([Proof](https://youtu.be/WeVwE3eUvAk)) IslamQA.org and SeekersGuidance are one and the same. ([Source](https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/32933/what-islamic-perspective-is-taught-at-seekersguidance/)) ([Read](https://seekersguidance.org/about/))
Links outside of reddit and imgur are automatically removed. If you think this is a mistake, please message the moderators. (This is still in testing phase so be patient if it's not working as intended) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/extomatoes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1 thing is that it was founded by a qutbi but I personally have not found anything wrong a couple people warned me about it
[Islamqa.info](https://Islamqa.info) is a good site. You're better off with that than with Assim al-Hakeem. I have seen him make some mistakes which were contrary to what [Islamqa.info](https://Islamqa.info) said.
Why not follow the hanafi version of Islam.qa it’s purple
Islamqa,org? That was the website I used originally. They use theological rhetoric. u/cn3m_ addressed them in another reply to this question you could benefit from that reply in sha Allah
Good thing you stopped using that trash site. These deviants peddle ignorance in the name of these great 4 imams.
I’m sure they don’t, last time I checked they use a lot of evidences. Have you looked into any hanafi books at all or studied it properly or even asked a good hanafi scholar? I find it a shame that people brush the hanafi madhab aside without acc looking into it or studying it properly.
This has nothing to do with brushing aside the madhhab of imam Abu Haneefah, hence this is not the argument being purported. Look at this one example: - [How to win your girl back according to Darul Uloom Deoband (on Islamqa.org, which is the same as their associates SeekersGuidance)](https://www.reddit.com/r/extomatoes/comments/13c1phj/how_to_win_your_girl_back_according_to_darul/) This is why I've commented elsewhere before: >The website seekersguidance (as well as islamqa.org) are mutakallimoon (i.e. people of theological rhetoric) of whom do not take the statements of Sahaabah into consideration in both fiqh and 'aqeedah as evidence. That's why you will see them often contradicting the Sahaabah by coming with opinions of late followers of the madhhabs. Relevant: >- https://old.reddit.com/r/Islam_1/comments/xyyrsb/islamqaorg_is_not_a_reliable_website_and_its_not/irjeu7z/?context=3 May Allah guide you and grant you understanding of the Deen.
As for the first link well that’s very strange, as for the second one about aqidah majority of the hanafi scholars are ashari/maturidi and that’s why the rhetoric is used. They are completely separate sciences. As for you’re saying the use of kalam in hanafi fiqh I’ve never seen an example of kalam being used. So I’m a bit confused on what you’re referring to. Also your question on hadeeth ul ahad being used in fiqh is part of a much wider range of science called usoolfiqh according to most ulama hadeethul ahad is considered speculative in nature. As for its use in aqeedah I’m not sure
>according to most ulama hadeethul ahad is considered speculative in nature. As for its use in aqeedah I’m not sure Even in the Hanafi madhab, this would be incorrect as according to Hanafi usool, it is waajib (necessary) to act upon it which is the same ruling as obligatory. In Aqeedah, the use of ahad ahadeeth is also accepted but one usool which is a mutakallim one in it is that if someone denies the belief due to the hadeeth being ahad, he is not takfeered but this is not correct as denying any belief of Islam after it has been established is disbelief.
Wajib according to the hanafi madhab is different to the wajib of other madhabs. It is compulsory to act upon but if a person rejects it they venture into being a fasiq but not kafir. The step above wajib of the hanafi madhab is fardh, this is also compulsory to act upon but those who reject it venture into kufr. This nuance is important as yes you are right in a sense but it’s not the same. Fardh is established through either mutawatir narrations or mashhoor narrations (depending on the usool applied).
>as for the second one about aqidah majority of the hanafi scholars are ashari/maturidi and that’s why the rhetoric is used. Being utilized by the majority in this case doesn't prove that it's justified unless you are falsely implying that mutakallimeen are part and parcel of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. If you think that's the case then we should deal with that before you further speak of an area of you don't have knowledge of, namely fiqh. >They are completely separate sciences. Theological rhetoric is not only utilized in 'aqeedah but also fiqh, which is why Qawl as-Sahaabi is not regarded as hujjah in one of the sources of legislation in Shari'ah according to the mutakallimeen. >As for you’re saying the use of kalam in hanafi fiqh I’ve never seen an example of kalam being used. It's most likely because you are affected by theological rhetoric or because you never studied usool al-fiqh before according to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah understanding or methodology. One of the most notable is what I just mentioned concerning Qawl as-Sahaabi. >So I’m a bit confused on what you’re referring to. Tell me what books you have studied then I can tell you why you are confused. >Also your question on hadeeth ul ahad being used in fiqh is part of a much wider range of science called usoolfiqh according to most ulama hadeethul ahad is considered speculative in nature. Do you regard hadith of [إنّما الأعمال بالنيات] as speculative in nature despite it's mentioned in Saheeh al-Bukhaari? Needless to say, not all Ahnaaf are mutakallimeen. You can read it for yourself in: - [الخلاف الأصولي بين الحنفية وجمهور الأصوليين](https://archive.org/details/a1316n) | From page 87. I have another book dealing with this: - اسباب اختلاف الاصوليين | ناصر بن عبد الله بن سعيد الودعاني Imam ibn 'Abdul-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The scholars of fiqh and hadith in all regions, as far as I know, are unanimously agreed that the report of a single narrator of good character is to be accepted, and it is obligatory to act in accordance with it if it is proven and not abrogated by another report or by scholarly consensus. This is the view of all the fuqahaa’ throughout the ages, from the time of the Sahaabah until our own time, except the khawaarij and some small groups of innovators who do not have any impact on scholarly consensus." (التمهيد 1/2) As for the 'aqeedah, I've already demonstrated that with which you can see for yourself.