BENEFIT 138: People should only consult local scholars about contemporary issues affecting their community as they are more knowledgeable regarding them?!

Questioner: As determined in Usool Al-Fiqh, it is necessary for the mufti/scholar who issues fatwas on contemporary affairs or other jurisprudential issues to be knowledgeable about the conditions of the people of the country. This means, for example, that someone in Saudi Arabia cannot issue a fatwa for Algeria. Sheikh Yūsuf Al-Jazaa’iri hafidahullāh: The statement you mentioned is not accurate at all because this issue (studying/working in a free-mixed environment), firstly, is not a contemporary matter. This is a matter explicitly mentioned in the texts of the Quran and Sunnah, and the prohibition is established concerning it. It is not a new issue requiring ijtihād. Contemporary matters (مسائل النوازل) are those issues lacking explicit texts, requiring inference through legislated principles, utilising analogy, identifying the underlying rationale, and other methods typically discussed in books related to contemporary issues. Hence, this issue cannot be considered a contemporary matter. Do you agree with me on this? Yes. Secondly, may Allāh bless you, the notion that only scholars within a country can issue fatwas on matters arising within that country is not only erroneous but also a pretext often used by Hizbi groups advocating for what they call "Fiqh Al-waaqi'." They argue, "We understand our reality better than anyone else. So Sheikh Ibn Baz, for example, in Saudi Arabia, does not understand our reality." This is their claim. Sheikh Ibn Baz, may Allāh have mercy on him, was knowledgeable about the Quran and Sunnah and adhered to the methodology of the Salaf. So, if he were presented with an issue arising whether in India, Algeria, or elsewhere, he would apply the Shariah of Allah Almighty on that matter. The Fatwa does not change with geographical distance. That's why you find that the Permanent Committee, chaired by Sheikh Ibn Baz, may Allāh have mercy on him, issued fatwas on نوازل in different countries, despite their geographical disparities. Even the issue of the Islamic Salvation Front, only addressed by eminent scholars outside Algeria, is a good example. So, it's not accurate to claim that only scholars from within a country can issue fatwas, while others cannot. Wherever there is a scholar of the Quran and Sunnah, proficient in understanding and applying the rulings on نوازل, that scholar— as long as he is trusted—should be referred to, as Allah says: {ولو ردوه إلى الرسول وإلى أولي الأمر منهم لعلمه الذين يستنبطونه منهم} "If they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it." Allah did not specify whether this authority figure should be local or distant. Similarly, {فاسئلوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمون} "So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know," did Allah specify whether they should be locals or outsiders? Such restrictions, when not specified by Shariah, are not taken into consideration. Since Allah has not restricted them, these restrictions are overlooked, neglected by the Shariah. Restricting matters not restricted by Shariah, while there's a need to so in every time and place, and with the dispersal of scholars in every time and place, indicates that this restriction has been intentionally overlooked by the sharee'ah. The Salaf were in Andalusia seeking fatwas from scholars in Makkah/Madinah, they came to consult Imam Malik in Madina, although they could have sought advice from Andalusian scholars. They did not insist on someone local, but rather seeking the most knowledgeable scholar. Even the scholars of Algeria themselves, in times of crisis, often seek advice from whom? They consult the scholars of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But why is the issue of free-mixing any different, such that they confine it to Algeria?! Source: https://t.me/almanhajussalafi/446 Related Benefit ⤵️ https://t.me/madrasatuna/4022