Is every common person affiliated with a school of jurisprudence, or is this a misconception prevalent among those who follow scholars without knowing their evidence?

The Shaykh : After this, I want to point out a misconception present in the minds of writers like this one and others like him among the doctors: Is it true that every common person has a school of jurisprudence? Now I am asking you all, and I am specifically addressing the question to you.

The questioner : Does every worker today have a school of jurisprudence? Answer me!

The questioner : I don't know!

The Shaykh : You don't know?

The questioner : The word is elastic, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : It is because it is elastic that there is no school of jurisprudence, because "elastic" means there is no school of jurisprudence. And I am answering you not from my own opinion, but from the words of the scholars regarding these followers of scholars without knowing their evidence. They say: "The common person has no school of jurisprudence." Ibn 'Abidin in "al-Hashiyyah" says: "The common person has no school of jurisprudence." Since when have you become Shafi'is? It is as if the school of jurisprudence contains wonders in its reality. They imagine that a school of jurisprudence is a religion, an independent religion like one of the other religions. So when a Muslim calls a Jew, a Christian, or others to Islam, what does that mean? It means he is calling them to strip themselves of their previous religion. These people imagine that following a school of jurisprudence is a religion in the first place. Then, upon this misconception, they have another misconception: they imagine that every Muslim is affiliated with a school of jurisprudence. This is a misconception that has no existence at all. I tell you: it is not the illiterate common person; these doctors and others like them have no school of jurisprudence. The proof is that none of them holds fast to the school of jurisprudence one hundred percent, correct? So what are you afraid of? First: The school of jurisprudence, in general, is not a religion; rather, it is the independent legal reasoning of an imam from the imams of the Muslims, who is correct in some matters and wrong in some. Second: No one among the Muslims—I challenge the greatest scholar in the world—can bring me a person who says: "This person is affiliated with so-and-so's school of jurisprudence." This is a misconception that has no existence. So you are afraid of the Salafi call, especially after it has been clarified in writing and in lectures, and so on. You are afraid for the religion of the common people. But the common person's religion is like the religion of every Muslim from the scholars of the Book and the Sunnah, but he must ask the people of knowledge, and the problem is solved. As for this fear, it is fear of a misconception from imagination. Following a school of jurisprudence is not a religion in the first place. Then, not every Muslim holds fast to a specific school of jurisprudence. Rather, sometimes you see a Hanafi, sometimes a Shafi'i, sometimes another, and so on. So, sometimes here, sometimes there, without knowledge. And as I said once: What is the difference between the Salafi call and the call of the schools of jurisprudence? The call of the schools of jurisprudence holds fast to the saying of an imam plus zero. The Salafi call: holds fast to the saying of an imam plus a verse plus a hadith plus the saying of so-and-so from the Companions, and so on. So who does not accept this addition, and who is better than the one who does not accept one instead of zero? So this is the reality. Therefore, these people imagined a reality that is imagination, and then they built upon that imagination an imagination upon imagination, darknesses some above others. My brother.

The questioner : This common person whom you also think is to be feared for, he is the one who should follow the Book and the Sunnah where he was, even if he did not find anything but that follower of scholars without knowing their evidence. Do you understand how? But our discussion is not with the one who does not know. Rather, we say as al-Subki said, and Ibn al-Salah accepted from him: We are addressing those to whom the proof has reached. The text of the Book and the Sunnah has come to them from scholars or claimants of knowledge. Why do you still say: "My imam did not take this hadith, so I do not take it"? Our problem is not with the common people, my brother. Our problem is with the specialists, and the specialists' problem is with the common people. These specialists are the ones who mislead the common people. We do not want anything but to guide them. But if we do not reach the common people and we cannot say to them "Allah said" and "The Messenger of Allah said," because they are first of all far from our environment and our books, and close to those who fight this true call, then we have no speech with these common people; rather, we are the ones who cause trial! And have you found a common person who was left to his nature, his disposition, and his innate natural disposition, and he heard a scholar of the Book and the Sunnah and what the Salaf al-Salih were upon, and he rebelled against us except by a stirrer from those "who fish, as it is said, in murky water"?