0

I'm referring to the question Are there any schools of thought which consider the science of Fiqh to be Bidah?

My answer now is as follows:

As i haven't heared of such a school and as there's no reason why one should pretend that fiqh is bid'ah i'll try to proof that this can't be the case as it is quoted in both the Quran and the Sunnah here just some examples:

  • Surat an-Nisa' (4:78) fiqh as understanding and believing once they do
  • Surat at-Tawba (9:122) fiqh as a fard kifaya
  • Surat at-Tawba (9:127) addressing the Munafiqiyn who don't understand (fiqh= understanding)
  • Surat Taha (20:28) fiqh as understanding (the speech of Musa (peace be upon him))
  • Mu’awiyah (RAA) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “When Allah wishes good for anyone, He bestows upon him the Fiqh (comprehension) of the religion.” Agreed upon. [Sahih al-Bukhari & Muslim etc.]
  • Difference between one who just narrated and one who understood a speech

As you may see the word fiqh was known and applied as the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to do fatwa himself. So rejecting this or considering it a bid'ah would be rejecting something our Messenger used to do and asked as to do!

So the Answer to your Question should be NO!

Now if you mean by this to specify chapters etc in book of fiqh. One may speak about a good bid'ah بدعة حسنة in this case i think you will find many who will call it so, see for example this fatwa in Arabic!

and Allah knows best!

I think now the reason for deleting is lifted.

1
  • Well somebody found a good answer for that question as far as i can say, so for me the discussion could be closed!
    – Medi1Saif Mod
    Commented Oct 9, 2015 at 13:12

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The following line I believe really sums up the bulk of the problems I have with your entire post (emphasis mine):

So the Answer to your Question should be NO!

We are not a site for telling people what they "should be" following when it comes to Islam. As Caleb so well-put it some time ago (emphasis again mine):

Content here should be descriptive of the way things are (including if they are debated) not prescriptive of the way they should be (and thus dragging the debate into this arena)

Your arguments are well-articulated, but the answer they're supporting is for exactly the wrong question; they have nothing whatsoever to do with whether any schools do believe that the science of fiqh is or is not bid'ah, it's just arguing why people shouldn't believe that the science of fiqh is bid'ah. In other words, the vast majority of your post is being prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Take that out, and the only relevant parts of your post that would remain would be as follows:

I haven't heard of such a school and there's no reason why one should [believe] that fiqh is bid'ah. So the answer to your question should be NO!

Which is severely lacking the meat required for an actual answer.

4
  • But if i just said: NO i couldn't find any and as fiqh was known and applied in the early days of islam calling it bida'h would mean to reject some part of the islamic teaching. I would get comments about a lack of sources etc.
    – Medi1Saif Mod
    Commented Sep 24, 2015 at 5:52
  • @MediSaif Yes. But adding in the wrong references doesn't help that; like I said, you spend most of the post answering exactly the wrong question.
    – goldPseudo Mod
    Commented Sep 24, 2015 at 5:56
  • 1
    The expression "the answer should be no" was a bit inaccurate what i ment is according to my search the answer as it seems should be no! I never want or wanted to say what one should do or not! I'll then try to find an appropriate answer and 5thanks for making it clear to me :)
    – Medi1Saif Mod
    Commented Sep 24, 2015 at 6:52
  • 1
    @medi saif: 'the answer should be No!', could be taken as rhetorical strategy - ie emphasis; but it's liable to be misconstrued too.
    – Mozibur Ullah
    Commented Sep 30, 2015 at 18:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .