The Ruling on Blind Adherence to the Four Schools of Jurisprudence

Question:
Some people, may Allah preserve you, claim that the followers of the four schools of jurisprudence are among the people of innovation. What is Your Eminence’s response to these people?

Answer:
This is invalid. The statement in its generality is invalid; such speech is not permissible. The default regarding the four schools is goodness, truth, and righteousness, for they are four scholars—Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, Malik, and Ahmad—who are callers to good and well-known scholars. However, the sin lies with the one who blindly adheres to them and follows them in matters of practice without knowledge. They err and they hit the mark; each one errs and hits the mark, and each one has issues in which he erred. It is obligatory for their followers to fear Allah and not to be blindly attached to them, but rather to take the truth by its evidence. If a certain scholar or another scholar errs, they should not follow his error just because he is the imam to whom they attribute their affiliation. No, the truth is above everyone. It is obligatory for the followers of Abu Hanifa, the followers of Malik, the followers of al-Shafi'i, the followers of Ahmad, and others among the people of knowledge to take the truth by its evidence and not to be blindly attached to Zayd or 'Aqil. Blind adherence must be avoided, and blind adherence is forbidden. It is not permissible for a Hanafi to be blindly attached to the Hanafi school, nor for a Shafi'i to be blindly attached to the Shafi'i school, nor for a Maliki, nor for a Hanbali. The truth is above everyone. It is obligatory for the followers of these schools to fear Allah, to take the truth by its evidence, and to strive in that matter so that the argument is what is prioritized and the evidence is what is given precedence. If the evidence agrees with what the Hanafis said, he takes the Hanafi position. If the evidence is with the Hanbalis, he takes their position in any issue. Likewise with the Malikis, and likewise with the Shafi'is. An example of this is...
...the grandfather with brothers. It is well-known among the Shafi'is, Malikis, and Hanbalis that the grandfather inherits alongside the brothers, while it is well-known among the Hanafis that the grandfather excludes the brothers. We say that the Hanafi position in this is more correct, and that the grandfather is a father who excludes the brothers for the sake of the evidence, not because the Hanafis say so, but because of the evidence. Similarly, the statement that touching a woman invalidates the ablution is well-known among the Shafi'is, who hold that touching a woman invalidates the ablution absolutely. Another group, such as the Hanbalis, holds that touching a woman with desire invalidates the ablution. The correct view is that touching a woman, whether with desire or without, does not invalidate the ablution; rather, it is invalidated by the known state of ritual impurity, or by passing wind, or by urination, or by defecation, or by touching the private parts with the hand, or by sleep, so that we may understand what is well-known. As for the saying of Allah the Exalted , the intended meaning is intercourse: "If you have intercourse." This is the truth in the meaning of the verse. These are examples to clarify the correct view. It is not permissible to be blindly attached to any of the four schools of jurisprudence, or to others such as the Zahiris, or to any other, without evidence. It is obligatory to take the evidence and to let the evidence be the judge. If the truth is with the Hanafis or with the Zahiris, he takes it. If it is with the Malikis, he takes it. If it is with the Hanbalis, he takes it. If it is with al-Shafi'i, he takes it. The decisive factor is the evidence. Therefore, those who attribute themselves to these schools should fear Allah, pay attention to the evidence, and let it be the judge, so that the argument is what is prioritized, the evidence is what is given precedence, and they distance themselves from blind adherence and following a scholar without knowing his evidence to...