JazzakAllah for the advice, honestly i clearly try to avoid disputes with anyone cause it affects me negatively., but at times you see something that is soo just not acceptable, silence seems to be an act of opression to the truth at that time.

Regarding Hidayah, it is indespensable to the Deobandi syllabus and at the core of hanafi fiqh as they see it, and I think, and Allah knows best, any attempt at removing this from the syllabus (or revising it) will be viewed as “modernist” etc… although one of the scholars i was stuyding it with, Mufti Barakatullah ( a very interesting
really humble person with diverse knoweldge) showed how a big chunk of it was inapplicable today is inapplicable today.

Wassalam

“Lol is this advertising for al-Azhar?”

Yes.

First, let me say that I have benefited greatly from the scholars of deoband. One of my Ijaza in hadith runs through them and I hold them in utmost admiration. That being said, I must admit that I disagree with their methods and those of their students in the West. However, I certainly would have no trouble praying behind them, taking knowledge from them and taking any benefit I could from them.

My teacher, the muhadith and scholar of hadith in this era, Dr. Akram Nadawi told me that the current state of classical fiqh studies is like “a man who went to buy a cow for its dung, ignoring the milk and the meat.”

Sh. Sulayman al-Nadawi: Another scholar who I was blessed to recieve an Ijaza through said, “The deobandis of today are not following the footsteps of Shah Waliullah al-Dehlawi. In fact, towards the end of his life he said, “I cannot lead this nation with one madhab.”

My advice, dear brother, would be to avoid conflicts, keep studying and try and mend fences. I would not get caught up in debating the deobandis as, if they continue on this way, the will find themselves out of touch with general muslim community and slowly isolated until they have no influence on the general society at large. Let the scholars work out their issues and let us remain students.

However, one thing I would stress is to take them to the Usol and to the foundational books of the madhab that were written pre 3rd century A.H. The books of Abu Yusuf and others. I would also take them to Bad’i al-San’i. I found al-Hidaya nothing short of a racist rant towards other madhabs and a book that has done a lot to create a very hanaficentric outlook.

SDW

“In al-Azhar, we’ve adopted the method of al-Shattibi and we are trained to go beyond the recipies that we’ve learned in our texts and weld them together with the societies that we live in.” Lol is this advertising for Al Azhar?

No really I also agree about the changing of Ahkam. It’s just were I live the overwhelming majority are brothers who seem themselves as “Deobandis”. I usually do not like giving names to people but I do in this case since it identifies a method, an approach. I myself have been taught a lot by scholars who may be considered as following this method. What is this method? It seems hard to explain in a few words but namely, COMPLETE adherence to the Hanafi madhab.

Any attempt to leave the mu’tamad of the madhab (let alone leave the madhab on an issue altogether) usually incites a barrage of insults from “deviating from the way of our scholars” to sheer “following desires (Ittiba al Hawa)
And Wallahi I say this in all honesty your statement:
“if there is no ‘Ijm’a on an issue and the text is not Qat’i Thubut, then rulings can change according to the Maslaha, which may be difficult or harsh, according to the mufti. ”
Will not sit well in the environment we have here.
Why am I telling you this? Because I want you to understand why my thinking becomes obscure at times, since I, after reading at large as well as speaking to a few scholars (independent minded) am convinced that the methodology of Sh Bin Bayyah for example, is much more effective in addressing problems than one which we exhort the masses to “fear Allah” and stay within the madhab.
It is because I take this stance that I am unfortunately viewed with a suspicious eye, even receiving comments such as “he is a salafi!” just recently I was having a discussion with a very well studied brother over praying behind a person who wipes on his normal socks (something deemed impermissible according to the Ahnaf) and I said I will. On being asked to explain why these people allow masah on normal socks (note I was only explaining the view trying to get him to understand, he understood my effort of trying to explain the view as if I had endorsed this view – since the normal reaction here would have been to simply sneer at this opinion and keep quiet) I explained and then the brother becoming angry exclaimed this is nothing short of Ittiba al hawa.
See ease in their view is a synonym for Ittiba al hawa in their (I agree not ALL, but in my experience, the overwhelming majority) view.
So the method here is very different from Al Azhar, and to be honest, Al Azhar is not viewed that highly here too. Again there is this cautious suspicious attitude toward scholars from there. This view encourages following and conformism than individual and original thinking, it seems under the guise of Ihtiyaat.
Anyway my comments should not in anyway be taken as an insult to the Ulama of Deoband or their piety (this seems to be a problem, since just because I differ or address issues of methodology of Fiqh, does not mean I am personally attacking persons holding this view). Indeed Deoband was once a high seat of learning, were scholars of high calibre were produced. There also scholars individually thinking diversely, but this has yet to be institutionalised.
Insha Allah I will be writing an article on this where I hope I can write my thoughts down more coherently.

I think Sh. Abu Yunus brings up a very important point that serves as a clear point of difference between the school of taqlid and the school of tajdid. The latter hold that taqlid is an enterprise for the novice, untrained student. However, for those who are given Ijaza in ifta, such as the students above, or at least they are in the process, ther is a different understanding. Namely, if there is no ‘Ijm’a on an issue and the text is not Qat’i Thubut, then rulings can change according to the Maslaha, which may be difficult or harsh, according to the mufti.

That understanding keeps the law alive, free of stagnation and relevant until the end of time. I’m not quite sure how one who is a violent proponet of the closure of Ijtihad can argue the Islam is good for all times and places, when the law he holds reflects, for the most part, a set of 10th century A.H constructs that have, at least in the areas of Mu’amallat, not been able to keep up with the pace of our current societies. Thus, as far as the school of tajdid is concerned, the goal is not ease in itself, but the truth.

If we continue to hold onto 10th century law manuals, ignoring the plight of the Muslim masses; unable to answer the current problems, then we will continue to see a society that finds it anchorage in other legal sources that are, as they see it, answering the problems and providing solutions for their lives. In al-Azhar, we’ve adopted the method of al-Shattibi and we are trained to go beyond the recipies that we’ve learned in our texts and weld them together with the societies that we live in.

SDW

Haq: I sent out an email around 2 weeks ago that answered some of the question above. I’m preparing it as an article so you can contact me there is your have any questions. I think we have to ask ourselves some very important questions about the nature of Shariah itself. If we believe that it is good for all times and ages, then how can propose that it is somehow frozen and stuck in a set of 12th century legal postulates? I find that impossible.

SDW