What is your opinion on following a school of jurisprudence or a scholar?

The questioner : We disapprove of those who follow the four schools of jurisprudence; that is, we disapprove of the issue of following a scholar without knowing his evidence. At the same time, as a question, I see that there are many young people, young people of my age, for example, who ask about a certain issue and we see them performing a certain act. We say to them, "Where did you get this from?" and they say, "Ibn Baz said so," or "Al-Albani said so," or, for example, in Iraq, "Ibn 'Uthaymeen said so," or "so-and-so said so." And you see that their state is mostly like this. Is this following a scholar without knowing his evidence, or is this matter permissible?The Shaykh : Is this following a scholar without knowing his evidence, or is this matter permissible?

The Shaykh : Do you mean by this approximation?

The questioner : Following a scholar without knowing his evidence.

The Shaykh : Following a scholar without knowing his evidence.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Following a scholar without knowing his evidence, my dear brother, is necessary. But the important thing for every Muslim is not to be fanatical except for the Book and the Sunnah. These issues truly require precise Islamic jurisprudence so that a person does not fall into excess or deficiency. Our discussion just now was not about following the four schools of jurisprudence; our discussion was that it is not permissible for us to say that those who follow scholars without knowing their evidence are following the Sunnah.

The questioner : As a question, the person?

The Shaykh : I am coming to you with the question, but I hope your question is not linked to the previous discussion.

The questioner : No, no, no, it is not linked.

The Shaykh : Ah, so I say that the beginning of knowledge is following a scholar without knowing his evidence. The beginning of knowledge is following a scholar without knowing his evidence, but the end of knowledge is moving beyond following a scholar without knowing his evidence. So now, you are asking a question that implies that these people follow the Hanafi school and these people followThe Shaykh : so-and-so andThe Shaykh : so-and-so. I hope you distinguish between this and that. Why? These people, some of whom I named just now,The Shaykh : for example, Ibn Baz, to the extent of the knowledge he was given, derives from the Book and the Sunnah. He is a human being subject to error and forgetfulness, and so on, but he is not fanatical about his Hanbali school in which he was raised. Okay, fine. Wherever you live, whether in Afghanistan, Turkey, Albania, or anywhere in the world, the school of jurisprudence is dominant over them, and every region has its character. The Turks do not know Islam except the Hanafi school; there is no other school there at all. Albania is the same. Morocco does not know except the Maliki school. Egypt has the Shafi'i school and the Hanafi school, and so on. Now, the scholars say, "The layperson has no school of jurisprudence." The layperson has no school of jurisprudence; his school is the school of his mufti. And is this the end of knowledge? Why? Because Allah the Exalted, in His saying in the noble Qur'an: , divided the Muslim community into two groups. The larger and more general group are those who do not know, and the opposite group are those who know. So He obligated the first group to ask the second group. He did not obligate the first group to divide into sects, parties, schools of jurisprudence, and paths. No, rather He said to them: . The people of knowledge mean, of course, not connecting to the dead through summoning spirits, but rather ask the people of knowledge, that is, the scholars who are among you. Now, any person, and let us speak about you, if you are living in a group of people of a specific school of jurisprudence, and among them are some scholars of that school, but you see that one of them has, in the Syrian expression, a bit of "flexibility"—do you understand this word?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Meaning he does not have the rigidity of the school of jurisprudence; he takes from another school what is stronger in his view. Do you feel reassured by this one or by those others?

The questioner : By this one.

The Shaykh : By this one. So, there is no escape from following a scholar without knowing his evidence, but the obligatory step is for a person to strive to apply, as mentioned in the previous saying of Allah the Exalted: . He does not cling to a person or a school of jurisprudence from which he does not deviate by a hair's breadth.
The second thing is that he should always embody in his starting point the saying of Allah the Exalted: . Insight is now missing among those who follow scholars without knowing their evidence, but it is present with those who say to you, "We heardThe Shaykh : so-and-so. Why did they leave their school of jurisprudence and cling toThe Shaykh : so-and-so? Is it not because they assume he has knowledge? Fine, but on the contrary, when they left the school of jurisprudence, it is because they know that the school of jurisprudence is on a path that does not deviate to the right or to the left. For example, when the Hanafi says "Allahu Akbar," it is not possible for him to say, "I turn my face toward He who created the heavens and the earth, inclining to Him." Absolutely not. Why? Because the Hanafi school, all its books of jurisprudence, whether summarized or simplified, have the opening supplication as "Subhanak Allahumma wa bihamdika." The Shafi'i is the opposite of that: "I turn my face." He never says, "Subhanak Allahumma." Whereas the one who asksThe Shaykh : about Ibn Baz or others will tell you, "My brother, all these supplications are authentic from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). If you open your prayer with this, it is permissible, or with this, it is permissible, but it is better to vary them." So from here, these people who follow scholars without knowing their evidence—let us call them followers of individuals as well—these are better than those followers of individuals, because those are on a path of a school of jurisprudence, while these are on a Salafi path: "If the hadith is authentic, then it is my school of jurisprudence." Therefore, if following a scholar without knowing his evidence is unavoidable, there is a very big difference between one type of following and another, as I gave you an example just now: if you live in a Hanafi school of jurisprudence and there are many scholars in this school, but you find one of them has some knowledge of hadith and some flexibility in the school of jurisprudence, your soul feels more reassured by him than by the others. Even more so if this scholar says, "I do not follow the school of jurisprudence; I follow the truth in whatever school of jurisprudence it is," so you feel even more reassured by him. And you will say, as those people I quoted said, because it is not required for every Muslim to be a student of knowledge; this is not required. This is the first point.
And secondly, it is not required for every student of knowledge to memorize the evidence for the issue in which he is convinced. For example, I give a very simple example: he asked me if blood coming out breaks the ablution. I told him, "No, it does not break the ablution," and I narrated to him the story. But this story, over time, went out of one ear and came out of the other. What remained with him? He remained with the conclusion that, by Allah, blood does not break the ablution because an incident occurred in the time of the Messenger of Allah. And if you ask me what the incident is, I do not remember it, because this is from the general Muslims; it is not required of him to memorize the evidence for you, but he understood the summary of the ruling. And I say, on this occasion, some of our Salafi brothers burden all individual Muslims to become like independent legal reasoners, meaning they know the issue and where it came from. You may find someone who does not understand anything asking a question, and the scholar says it is permissible or not permissible, and he asks, "What is the evidence?" And if he tried to explain the evidence to him, he would not understand it, because the issue is not as clear as the sun in the fourth hour of the day; it has precision. And I give a very simple example: I was asked by phone the day before yesterday about an authentic hadith . The question was whether this ruling is specific to the Prophet's Mosque or includes all mosques? I told him, "No, the hadith is not specific to the Prophet's Mosque." He said to me, "What is the evidence?" He is excused because the hadith says, "My mosque." I said to him, "My brother, not every issue can be understood by the general people in terms of its evidence." And peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings. He said to me, "If we say the Messenger said, 'A prayer in my mosque is a thousand prayers,' then every mosque is a thousand prayers." So it is wrong to burden people with what they cannot bear. The first of this wrongness is to burden people to be all scholars; this is an invalid burden. Rather, it is wrong to burden all people to be students of knowledge; this is also wrong. But as came in the report from some of the righteous predecessors: "Be a scholar, or a learner, or a listener, and do not be the fourth, lest you perish." Today, unfortunately, most people are of the fourth category; they do not care to ask, nor do they learn, nor do they attend gatherings of knowledge. On the contrary, if there is a gathering of knowledge, they are repelled , because they are not accustomed to the life of knowledge. So the point is following a scholar without knowing his evidence. Following a scholar without knowing his evidence is necessary, but there is a difference between following and following. And following is a means, not an end; it must end at the end, which is to be on insight regarding one's religion, each according to his capacity. So I think I have given you the answer to your question, if Allah wills?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.