Is it permissible to follow a specific school of jurisprudence? And if it is not permissible, we request that you mention for us the evidence for the prohibition.

The Shaykh : Is it permissible to follow a specific school of jurisprudence? And if it is not permissible, we request that you mention for us the evidence that prevents that, knowing that the one who follows the school reads the evidence for the ruling; because we will certainly err more than they do; because our knowledge is less than theirs, and because, according to your saying: every person errs.
Yes?
errs, and the error of the scholar of the school is less than our error?
Correct, but this questioner thinks that we are calling for abandoning the school of jurisprudence. First, he divorces it with three [divorces]; that is how the questioner imagines it, and we do not say that. This is the first point, and I will elaborate on this somewhat. Second, he imagines that we will bring an opinion from ourselves that no scholar among the scholars of the Muslims has ever said. Where did this illusion come from? From his saying: if they err, we err more. This is a correct statement, but we do not... bring an opinion from ourselves that contradicts the opinions of... them. And then it is said: if they erred, then we are more erroneous and more clearly erroneous. But we say: and all that we call people to is what we always and forever repeat, and we mentioned it just now, when the questioner there asked: the Muslims agreed on such and such. We said: Did they all agree? He said: No. So we said to him: Then, we return to the saying of Allah - Mighty and Majestic: . This is our obligation, and this is our call; it is that when the scholars of the Muslims differ, we do not accept this difference, and we do not make it a religion, but rather we try to get rid of it as much as possible.
In a disagreement of a hundred issues, we try to get rid of one issue. And how is this resolution possible? It is by judging by the previous verse: . The questioner will say: Okay, is it permissible for you to err? I will say: Yes, it is permissible for me to err, a fortiori, as all reasonable people say and have said. But I am not alone in the field. I say: Take the school of Abu Hanifah if the evidence is stronger and more powerful for you, or the school of al-Shafi'i; in that case, the difference between you and others, or between you when you follow your own school and you yourself when you follow another school, will be because you know that its evidence is stronger than the evidence of your imam. You are like Zayd of the people, like a man, for example, who follows the Hanafi school, and the Hanafi school does not consider raising the hands in bowing and prostration; that is: at the bowing and at the rising from the bowing. Then you found twenty hadiths, for example, that the Messenger - peace be upon him - used to raise his hands at the bowing, and you found in the school of Abu Hanifah the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud who said: "Shall I not lead you in the prayer of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him? So he raised his hands, then he did not do it again." So you thought between these two schools, and the Shafi'i school, which is not your original school, became more preponderant for you; because you found twenty hadiths in it, whereas in your original school you found only one hadith. Added to that, this single hadith is a negative, non-affirming one; it does not mention that the Messenger - peace be upon him - raised his hands at the bowing, while the twenty hadiths are affirmative hadiths, all of whose narrators say that the Messenger used to raise his hands, so you took this school.
Let us suppose that you are likely, and we confirm it is likely, that you erred. But there is a difference between your previous state when you did not raise your hands, and your new subsequent state when you started raising them. Previously, you did not know except the Hanafi school, and that raising the hands is disliked. So when you opened up to know the evidences and to get rid of the disagreement as the verse requests of us, you sought the evidence of the Hanafi school and found the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud mentioned, you sought the evidence of the Shafi'i school and found twenty hadiths, so you took the raising for the sake of twenty hadiths. Do you not see that you are now you and the same person? Are you not now more pleasing to Allah and His Messenger than you were before you studied the issue and before you looked into the twenty hadiths? Without a doubt. So, with the possibility that you erred in taking the opinion of al-Shafi'i in this issue, but you are on a straighter path and more upright in saying when you took the twenty hadiths, added to the fact that it is the school of al-Shafi'i; from when you were taking the school of Abu Hanifah, added to the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud. With the possibility that the one who wants to take the most correct of the schools might err; we do not deny this. But as I say in many such occasions: the difference between the follower (muqallid) and the one who follows (muttabi') as we say: there is a follower among us, and there is a one who follows among us. The follower is the one who does not know the evidences of the school, and does not compare these evidences with the evidences of the other schools. This is the follower. As for the one who follows, he is the one who follows the hadith wherever it is and in any school of the schools of the imams of Islam.
So the difference between the follower and the one who follows is as follows, a mathematical operation: follower plus zero equals zero, one who follows plus hadith equals one or equals two. So here there is a one who follows plus hadith, whereas the follower has nothing added except zero; because he does not know anything. And therefore the scholars said: following (taqlid) is from the necklace (qaladah), and the necklace is the collar, so it is as if the follower throws his religion like a necklace on the neck of the one followed; meaning, as the common people say today: "On your neck, on your honor, and put your feet in cold water"; it no longer matters to him whether the source of this opinion is that Allah said it, or the Messenger of Allah said it, or it is consensus, or is it opinion and independent legal reasoning? It does not matter to him, he followed his religion. As for the one who follows: . This one who follows is not satisfied with merely so-and-so said such and such, as you are seeing; the questioner asks a question, so he answers quickly according to the circumstance, and the answer is clear and convincing by its nature; because we learned to walk with insight. A second question is answered: What is the evidence? As happened just now regarding wiping over the socks. This is the sound path that the person does not close his eyes and walk, but opens his eyes and walks. We do not want from the Muslims more than that they be with insight into their religion. And the truth is that in this message we referred to just now, I concluded it with a word that it is perhaps appropriate now to read it to you; because it is related to the subject:
"... the cultured Muslim youth today, and in conclusion: O brothers, I do not want from this word of mine to burden you to be all imams, independent legal reasoners, and jurists who verify, even though that would please me as it pleases you, since that is usually not possible due to the necessity of differing specializations and the cooperation of specialists with each other. Rather, I wanted from it two things:
The first point is that you should be aware of a matter that has been hidden from many of today’s educated, believing youth, let alone others. It is that while they have learned, through the efforts and writings of some Islamic writers such as Sayyid Qutb (may Allah have mercy on him), the scholar al-Mawdudi (may Allah preserve him), and others, that the right of legislation belongs to Allah (the Exalted) alone, with no human being or body sharing in it with Him—which is what they expressed as the sovereignty of Allah (the Exalted)—and this is explicit in the aforementioned texts from the Book and the Sunnah at the beginning of this speech from the book, I say: in this very same time, many of these youths have not yet realized that participation which contradicts the principle of the sovereignty of Allah (the Exalted) makes no difference whether the human being followed instead of Allah is a Muslim who erred in one of Allah’s rulings, or a disbeliever who appointed himself a legislator alongside Allah, and whether he is a scholar or ignorant; all of this contradicts the aforementioned principle which the youth have believed in, and praise be to Allah (the Exalted). This is what I wanted you to be aware of and I remind you of it, for the reminder benefits the believers.
I have heard many of them preach with great enthusiasm and praiseworthy Islamic zeal, affirming that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone, and striking at the ruling systems of the disbelievers. This is a beautiful thing, even though we cannot change it now. Meanwhile, there is in the hearts of many of us what contradicts the aforementioned principle, and it is easy to change, yet we do not alert the Muslims to it or remind them of it. That is religion based on taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), and rejecting the texts of the Book and the Sunnah because of it. So this same enthusiastic preacher, if you alerted him to a contradiction of his that occurred with a verse or a hadith, he would immediately resort to arguing by the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) without realizing—regrettably—that by this action he is negating that great principle to which he called the people.
What is it? Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone. But is sovereignty belonging to Allah alone just rejecting the laws of the disbelievers?
No, it is more precise than that: it is rejecting the statement of the Muslim because it contradicts the Book and the Sunnah. He would immediately resort to arguing by the madhhab without realizing—regrettably—that by this knowledge he is negating that great principle to which he called the people. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: , so he should have hastened to submit to what he heard of the reminder and the evidence, because that is knowledge, and he should not resort to taqlid, because that is ignorance.
The point of this speech is its beginning, but the crux of the matter is my saying:
The other matter is that you should realize in your hearts a level that is obligatory, possible, and easy for every Muslim, even to a small degree. It is below the level of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) and verification, which only the select few of men can undertake. It is the level of following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and singling Him out for that, each of you according to his capacity. This is what I ask, and we Salafis ask, of all Muslims: that they single out the Messenger (peace be upon him) in following, just as they singled out Allah in tawhid (the oneness of Allah). Singling out the Messenger in following is a goal without which the faith of the Muslim is not complete, and it is part of the meaning of the statement: "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." But realizing the singling out of the Messenger in following, as I said, is each of you according to his capacity. The scholar has a wider scope for this realization than the student of knowledge, and the non-student is far below that; each according to his capacity. Just as you single out Allah (the Exalted) in your worship, so you single out the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in your following. So your worshipped One is one, and your followed One is one, and by that you realize in practice the testimony that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. So prepare, O noble brothers, your souls to believe in every hadith that is established for you from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whether it is in creed or rulings, and whether your imam, whose madhhab you grew up with due to your environment, or other imams of the Muslims, stated it. Do not adopt a rule from those rules that were established by the opinions and ijtihad of some men who were not mujtahids (a scholar qualified to derive rulings), which would prevent you from following. And do not follow any human being, however high and exalted, preferring his statement over the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) after it has been conveyed to you. This is what we want from you.
Do not become a greater mujtahid! This has its imams, its men. And do not become a half-mujtahid on the basis that ijtihad is divisible! Rather, be a knowledgeable man who conveys to you a hadith from the Messenger, and do not say: "I do not take it because it contradicts my madhhab." What is your madhhab? And this statement—regrettably—is said by scholars, not by the common people whom we warn against doing ijtihad and becoming scholars who understand the Book and the Sunnah. But their minds were shackled by religion based on taqlid, so it prevented them from singling out the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in following.
And know that by this only, and not by anything else, you realize in knowledge and practice the principle that says: "There is no god but Allah is a way of life," and the principle that says: "Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone (Blessed and Exalted is He)." And without that, it is impossible to create the unique Quranic generation which alone is able to establish the Muslim society and its characteristics, and consequently the desired Muslim state, in accordance with the sincere wisdom said by one of the great Islamic callers (may Allah have mercy on him): "Establish the state of Islam in your hearts, and it will be established for you on your land." And perhaps that will be near: .
Is it a need or not?
To the end of the verse. Is this verse addressed to the scholars of the Muslims or to their ignorant ones?
I hope that the brother who raised the question will take on the answer. If he does... no problem, be patient, I will expand with you, meaning, if you feel unable to answer, it is permissible to delegate in the manner of lawyers, where one answers for you. Do you want someone to answer for you? Then you answer.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : You want me to answer your question! Because if we have here fifty people or a hundred people.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Be patient, be patient, be patient.
If we have here a hundred people, and each one asks a question according to his way, and my duty is to answer each one according to his understanding, his intellect, his culture, and his logic, do you think if the number is fifty, I would be fifty-one, and if the number is a hundred, it would be a hundred and one? This one who completed the number to fifty-one or a hundred and one; is it not permissible for him to ask a question?! So, I hope to receive the answer. I asked you: His saying (the Exalted): Is this an address to the scholars of the Muslims or to their ignorant ones?

The questioner : ... I ask, what is the main topic.

The Shaykh : Why us? What told you that we are not now?

Another questioner : You are answering him, he is not answering!

The Shaykh : Be patient, my brother!

The questioner : ... the scholars ... where is the correct one?

The Shaykh : You agree.

The questioner : Where is the correct one? ... .

The Shaykh : Meaning, the answer that I am presenting to you ... be patient, be patient ... .