The ulama are the most worthy of our husn al-dhann. But we live in the age of nafs. The nafs pulls people to question where there is no legitimate reason to question. The result is widespread ignorance.
QUOTE from The Hanbali Madhhab Facebook Page:
❝Look at how scholars deal with that which is not known to them:
In Sharh Muntaha-l Iradat, al-‘Allamah al-Buhuti (r) says whilst discussing the rulings of al-Tarawih:
“It is not preferred that the Imam exceeds beyond one completion of the Qur’an for Tarawih unless however that’s what they (the congregation) prefer. Also, it is not preferred that they (the congregation) go for anything less than a completion of the whole Qur’an, so they can attain its rewards.
He (the Imam) should commence the (Tarawih) prayer in the first night with Surah al-‘Alaq as that was the first to be revealed. Then he goes down to Sujud (as there is a Sajdah in the Surah) and then gets up and begins from al-Baqarah, nassan نصاً. Maybe a report reached him regarding this issue.”
Him saying “Nassan” (a technical term) indicates that this is directly from Imam Ahmad, meaning, it isn’t a ruling which the scholars of the Madhhab extracted based on Imam Ahmad’s Usul, nor is it one of their independent opinions within the Madhhab, rather, it is the opinion of the Imam of the Madhhab himself.
But, what is the Dalil (evidence)? = “Maybe a report reached him regarding this ruling.”
Ibn al-Najjar (r) preceded him in saying something similar in his Sharh.
These two are the Imams of the later day Hanbalis, and their pillars; they are the two giants, the two Imams who are given precedence over others and in spite of the evidence of their Imam being not known to them you don’t see them rushing to refute this opinion nor do you see them refusing to have anything to do with it, nor did they say, “What matters is the evidence and as we don’t see the Imam having any evidence in this issue, we won’t go with him in saying that it is Mustahabb.”
Nor did they throw the reader into confusion like how certain contemporaries do with the argument of following the evidence.
But how did the minds of these two scholars work here:
Putting aside the issue of Tarawih, Ahmad is an Imam of truth, his adherence to reports and narrations and his veneration for them is unquestionable; his knowledge is vast and extensive; none from his contemporaries nor from those who came after him are equal to him in his knowledge of the Sunnah and the reports of the Sahabah; the matter at hand (Tarawih) is related to worship, so it is not possible to say that something is Mustahabb without evidence and there are myriad reports from Ahmad himself on him prohibiting innovation in the religion and prohibiting that a man speaks on an issue without evidence and without an Imam preceding him in his position; also, just because something isn’t at hand doesn’t negate its existence, so, just because we aren’t aware of the evidence behind what a great Imam like Ahmad, someone whom the scholars have unanimously agreed that one is free from blame by doing his Taqlid, just because we aren’t aware of the evidence for his position doesn’t mean he never had one.
With the above in mind and with a mentality that doesn’t constantly seek out errors, the scholars deal with the major scholars of this religion and as a result of this the student of Fiqh is nurtured upon that which befits a person of knowledge whilst developing a sound mindset.
This has nothing to do with fanaticism as some perceive it to be. These are the people who don’t understand what fanaticism is nor do they differentiate between being fanatical and (truly) respecting the scholars and their Ijtihad.
Similarly, Sh. Ibn Qasim al-Najdi (r), the one who gathered Fatawa Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (r) and penned the voluminous Hashiyah on al-Rawd al-Murbi, which is a beneficial Hashiyah, he once commented on a statement of Ibn al-Qayyim and mentioned something similar.
Al-‘Allamah al-Buhuti said in al-Rawd regarding the marriage contract: “It is preferred in the mosque, as stated by Ibn al-Qayyim.”
The practice of Sh. Ibn Qasim (in his Hashiyah) is to bring evidences for Sh. al-Buhuti’s statements, often agreeing with him and often disagreeing. So what did he say whilst bringing the evidence for Ibn al-Qayyim’s position of this issue being preferred (mustahabb)?
He said, “He is a trustworthy scholar and he would never say that something is preferred unless it has a basis in the religion for it being preferred.”❞
— Sh. Muhammad ‘Abdul Wahid al-Hanbali (h)