hussein rajabi

Absolute subservience to the juridical views of the four schools of jurisprudence is not consistent with the teachings of Islam. Nonetheless, majority of Sunni Muslims follow one of the leaders or imams of the four schools binding their practice with the jurisprudential rulings of the four schools. Ibn Taymiyyah has opposed the Sunni method considering taqlid (following) of the four imams as invalid and incorrect. He has gone to extremes in opposing Ahl-e Sunnah since he, sometimes, considers the followers of the four leaders as heretics who must repent for such acts. Sometimes, he calls them apostates and other times he describes them as the people of innovation (ahl-e bid'ah). That is when labeling a Muslim as a disbeliever and apostate has been forbidden in multiple traditions, so much that it has been narrated that if someone ascribes infidelity and apostasy to someone, he is more entitled to be called a disbeliever and an apostate. Labeling Muslims as innovators is also inappropriate because every act that did not use to be practiced in the time of the predecessors does not mean that it is unlawful or evil. Perhaps, there might be something that may have come into being after the Salaf period but no one has claimed that it is bid'ah. This research uses analytical – descriptive method to study Ibn Taymiyyah's opinion about the followers of the four schools of jurisprudence, and it has proved that embarking on excommunicating others while encountering Muslim is not appropriate.

Jurisprudential point of view about non-traditional divorce in Imamiyya and Hanafi’s jurists is one of the most serious and challenging issues in divorce. According to Imamiyya’s jurisprudential foundations such as following the absolutely clear text(Nas), practice (Sunnah) and consensus decrees that the four instances of divorce: divorce of woman in her monthly period, in her puerperal period, in her cleanliness in which sexual intercourse is done and sum divorce are prohibited, unlawful, non-traditional divorce and against the religious law; and emphasize on their nullity; while Hanafi’s jurists, under the same titles and the prophet companions’ behavior and comparison, insist on its permission and accuracy. But foundations of accuracy of non-traditional divorce, regarding with serious challenges, can’t only encounter foundations of nullity but there are evidences against it. Therefore the fundamental technique to solve the differences is to rely on traditional divorce on which is agreed and accepted by principles and rules of both jurisprudential approaches.

In the realm of politics, the issue of the legitimacy and appointment of a Muslim ruler is one of the most fundamental challenging issue between the ShiÝi political thought and the western thought. Belief in the divine appointment of a Muslim ruler can make dramatic changes in the fiqhi (jurisprudential) statements in the realm of politics. In this article, the writer tries to make a contrastive analysis of various views of the issue in question and explain what important consequences may follow from this in the political thought. The necessity of political revolution and the establishment of government, the obligation of the appointment of someone as a ruler and the duty of people in following and assisting him, the illegal acts of opposition to the appointed ruler and the acceptance of the authority of infidels, delegation of all powers and authorities to a Muslim ruler and illegitimacy of any intervention in social affairs without his permission, the necessity of basing all governmental policies on the Islamic laws, the duty of Islamic government to make plans and legislate laws for the sake of the spiritual guidance of society and, last but not least, determining the position of ‘allegiance’ and ‘ national poll’ can be said to be the consequences of this view in the political thought of Islam. The way in which these statements have relations with the ‘idea of appointing a Muslim ruler’ has also been explained in the article.

The present research work studies the ‘fitnah of takfir’ as one of the most important problems in the Islamic world today. Unfortunately, to achieve their filthy aims, the enemies of Islam, taking the advantages of the ignorance of certain Muslim groups, is trying to skillfully manage and control their jihÁdi movements, which have been actually intended to be against unbelief and Zionists’ acts of aggressions, and motivate the Muslim sects to wage wars against each other. In addition, they set the stage for takfir, which does not have any footing in the orthodox faith of Islam, to find its way into religion and religious sects, taking on the appearance of a great fitnah (sedition) in the Muslim world today.
Drawing upon religious and fiqhi texts of religious sects of Islam (whether ShiÝi or Sunni texts), this research work tries to cast light on the nature of the fitnah of takfir on the one hand, and to put forward the fiqhi truthful opinion about those who are involved in leading the fitnah or who play a role in it on the other. It also makes clear the responsibilities of the other Muslim majorities around the world towards this takfiri group. The problem can be put this way: If Muslims are faced with the fitnah of takfir, what strategies can Islamic fiqh formulate to prevent it or lead it to the right direction in order to keep the Muslim community away from the enormous threatening dangers of these extremist takfiri groups?