THE ANCIENT SCHOOLS OF LAW SHAFI’IS ATTITUDE TO THEM

Shafi’I is known as the founder of one of the four surviving orthodox school of law. It was not his attention to found such a school, and Muzani, the author of the earliest handbook of the shafi’ite school, declares at the beginning of his work.:”I made this book an extract from the doctrine of shafi’i and from the implications of his opinions, for the benefit of those who may desire it, although Shafi’i forbade anyone to follow him or anyone else”. Shafi’i devotes a considerable part of his writings to discussions with and polemics against his opponents, but always with a view to making them acknowledge and follow the sunna of the prophet, and he speaks repeatedly against the unquestioning acceptance of the opinion of men.
The older schools of law to which Shafi’i is opposed, know a certain degree of personal allegiance to a master and his doctrine. Amongst the Iraqians hi find Abu Yusuf refer to Abu Hanifa as ‘the prominent lawyer’ and Shaibani to ‘the companion of Abu Hanifa’ : shafi’i refers to those ‘who follow the doctrine of Abu Hanifa’, or to his ‘companions’ and calls him ‘their master’ : but also Abu Yusuf has followers of his own. The most outspoken passage is one in which an Iraqian opponent, presumably Shaibani, acknowledges Shafi’I’s doctrine as good, but Shafi’I retorts that, as far as he knew, neither the opponent had adopted it nor another of his ilk who lorded it over them, presumably Abu Hanifa.
Some of the madinese rely on malik for their knowledge of traditions, and consider Malik’s Muwatta as their authoritative book ‘which they prefer to all others and which they are accustomed to follow’ ; they are the ‘followers’ of Malik and he is their ‘master’ ; they regard his opinion as if it were the consensus for them besides Milik in Madina. But they are only a fraction of the Medinese, just as the followers of Abu Hanifa are only part of the Iraqians.
The real distinguishing feature between the ancient school of law is neither the personal allegiance to a master nor, as we shall see latter, any assential difference of doctrine, but simply their geographical distribution. Shafi’I is explicit about it : ‘every capital of the Muslims is a seat of learning whose people follow the opinion of one of their countrymen in most of his teachings’. Shafi’I goes on to mention the local authorities of the people of Mecca, Basra, Kufa, Syria: elsewhere, he refers to the Iraqians and Medinese, the Basrians and Kufians, the scholars of each place where knowledge of tradition is to be found, the people of the different countries, and he gives detailed list of these local authorities.
One of these list shows the variety of doctrines within the great geographical divisions: ‘In Mecca there were some who hardly differed from ‘ata’, and others who preferred a different opinion to his; then came Zanji b. kholid and gave legal opinions, and some preferred his doctrine, whereas others inclined towards the doctrine of Sa’id b. Salim, and the adherents of both exaggerated. In Medina people preferred Sa’id b. Musaiyib, then they abandoned some of his opinions, then in our own time Malik came forward and many preferred him, whereas others attacked his opinion extravagantly. I saw Ibn Abil-Zinad exaggerate his opposition to him, and Mughira, Ibn Hazim, and Darawardi follow some of his opinion, whereas others attacked them (for it). In Kufa I saw people incline towards Ibn Abil Laila and attack the doctrines of Abu Yusuf, whereas followed Abu Yusuf and disagreed with Ibn Abi Laila and with his divergences from Abu Yusuf, and others again inclined towards the doctrine of Sufyan Thauri and that of Hasan b. Salih. I have also heard of other instances of this kind, similar to those which I have observed and described. Some Meccans even think of Ata more highly than of the Succesors, and some of their opponents place Ibrahim Nakha’i.
Shafi’I attacks the Iraqians just as vigorously as he does the Medinese. Even where he has to agree with the Iraqians and to disagree with the Medinese, he is inclined to dissociate himself from the former and identify himself with the latter. Often he shows himself one-sides by sparing or excusing the Medinese and directing his full attack against the Iraqians. He shows the same sympathy for Auza’I as against the Iraqians. He attack the Iraqians repeatedly with unjustified arguments and distorts their doctrine. A strong personal prejudice against Shaibani appears in several places, where Shafi’I calls Malik ‘a greater than he’.

Kunjungi Lapak Kami Dhamar Mart,,, Harga kesepakatan penjual dan pembeli.
Instagram @dhamar_mart
Instagram @dhamar_hijab
FB Dhamar Mart

Share it to your friends..!