Is the hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), "If the imam exerts his judgment and errs, he has one reward, and if he is correct, he has two rewards," authentic? In the case of the hadith's authenticity and the error in ijtihad, is the Muslim obligated to perform ijtihad?

The Shaykh : All praise is due to Allah; we praise Him, seek His help, and seek His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our deeds and from the badness of our deeds. Whom Allah guides, none can mislead, and whom He leaves to mislead, none can guide. And I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. As for what follows,
The best of speech is the speech of Allah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). The worst of matters are their innovations, and every innovation is a religious innovation (bid'ah), and every religious innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire.
The questioner asks here: Is the hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) "If the imam exerts his judgment and errs, he has one reward, and if he is correct, he has two rewards" authentic? In the case of the hadith's authenticity and the error in ijtihad, is the Muslim obligated to perform ijtihad?
We have discussed this issue many times, and the question is repeated, so do not listen to it. The reason for this is that, unfortunately, there are people with malicious intent who stir up this problem among people with much slander and fabrication against the innocent. Therefore, it is necessary to answer this question in its two parts.
The first part: The hadith is authentic, for it is what al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih from the hadith of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with them both). He said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: .
The second part of the question: Is the Muslim obligated to perform ijtihad? The answer is: he is obligated and not obligated, meaning that this varies according to the Muslim's knowledge, culture, ability, and readiness. All of this must be considered when it is said that it is obligatory for the Muslim to exert his judgment. I was, as you heard, perhaps in the Holy City of Madinah, and there are people who call us to the Book and the Sunnah, but they are beginners on the path and in need of much knowledge. They say that ijtihad is obligatory for every Muslim without any detail. Detailing is obligatory for every Muslim scholar to perform so that he does not fall into excess or negligence. I previously said to these people and others here that the original ruling regarding taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) is that it is not permissible. The original ruling is that any Muslim, whoever he is, must proceed in his Islamic life with certainty and insight into his religion, as our Lord, the Exalted, said in His Book: . So if the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted, is a report on the tongue of His Prophet, "I and those who follow me are on insight," and if this is a general text that includes every follower of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), as the Exalted said: , and if this text, "I and those who follow me are on insight," is a comprehensive text for every Muslim, then there is no doubt in the mind of every Muslim that it is obligatory for every Muslim to be on insight regarding his religion. This is the original ruling. There is no difference in this between a scholar, a student, and a non-student, as came in some athar (reports) stopping at a Companion: . There is no difference in this between the classes of Muslims in terms of their culture, for it is obligatory for each of them to be on insight regarding his religion, due to the previous verse and others that lead to its meaning. However, not every Muslim may be able to be on insight in every issue. In that case, he does what he is able to. And I said to those people that many of the mujtahid (scholars qualified to derive rulings) scholars follow others in some cases out of necessity. The mujtahid scholars sometimes follow others, but they do so only out of necessity. I also said that taqlid, in that it contradicts insight into the religion, is not more strictly forbidden than what Allah, the Exalted, has forbidden in the Qur'an, such as His saying: to the end of the verse. But this prohibition is tied to and connected to ability, for the rule says, the Qur'anic rule says: . So if a person is in a situation where he cannot do anything but commit one of these three prohibitions mentioned in the previous verse , and he is compelled to one of these prohibitions, then it is not forbidden for him, due to His saying in the completion of the verse: . From this verse and others came the Islamic jurisprudential rule: "Necessities permit the prohibited". I return to say that taqlid is not more strictly forbidden than these prohibitions and their like. If these prohibitions are permitted out of necessity, then taqlid is also permitted out of necessity. Therefore, just as it is not permissible to exaggerate in forbidding taqlid entirely in all cases and situations, as we mentioned above, the state of compulsion is an exception to the prohibition. Likewise, it is not permissible, obviously, to make the state of Muslims in general, including scholars, shaykhs, and people of knowledge and virtue, as they say, a state of compulsion. That is as if we said that Muslims today are compelled to eat these prohibitions. This is what a person says because they live in a normal situation, so they are able to eat from what Allah has made lawful other than these prohibitions. How can it be said that, in this situation, they are compelled to eat carrion, blood, and the flesh of the pig? No person with a grain of intelligence says this. Likewise, it is never correct to reverse the situation and say that all Muslims today, including people of knowledge, are compelled to taqlid because they are unable to perform ijtihad. This is a reversal of what the state of the Islamic world should be. The Islamic world, since the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), had people in classes: a scholar, a student, and a listener. If we make all classes today the lowest class, which is the listener, who hears the word, catches it, and acts upon it, but from where did it come? What is its origin? What is its detail? What is its analysis? Is it from the Book? Is it from the Sunnah? Is it from analogical reasoning (qiyas)? And is this qiyas clear or hidden? Is it a valid qiyas, a qiyas of priority, or something similar? This is not something this lowest class, the class of listeners, can do. Only the class of people of knowledge can do it. So, taqlid, at the time when it is forbidden and it is obligatory for every Muslim to escape from it to the best of his ability, for Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.
In light of this, we must understand this issue so that we do not fall into excess or deficiency, as we have mentioned. Not every Muslim is obligated to perform independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), but the one who is obligated to do so is the one who is capable. However, there is a middle ground between following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) and independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). This is because we stated earlier that every Muslim must have clarity regarding his religion, based on the general text of the previous verse. Yet, clarity in religion can be attained in a way that is neither independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) nor the forbidden following of a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid), which is originally prohibited. It is not attained through the method of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), which not everyone can do except for the few among them, nor through the method of following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid), which is originally prohibited. There is a middle path between the two methods of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) and following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid), which is the method of following (ittiba'). This is a technical term adopted by many of the meticulous scholars, both past and present, such as the Hafiz of Andalusia, Abu 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Barr. He classified knowledge into three levels: independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), following (ittiba'), and following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid). Those who came after him among the scholars of meticulous research, such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim and others, followed this classification. The method of following (ittiba') is the solution to the problem of eliminating the widespread following of a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) that has spread throughout the lands of Islam. It is not the method of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), as those who are deluded and the liars who fabricate today suppose. It is possible to eliminate following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid), which is originally forbidden, not only through the method of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), but also through another method below that, which is the method of following (ittiba'). The difference between the path of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) and following (ittiba') is easy and very clear. It is that independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) means that the Muslim scholar must have knowledge of the Arabic language and its literature, and the sciences of the Shari'ah, such as the science of hadith, exegesis, and the principles of jurisprudence, and the like. In reality, even those who have studied these sciences cannot achieve and apply them practically in their scientific reality. But following (ittiba') is that when you are unable to perform independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), you ask the people of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), the people of knowledge and jurisprudence in the religion, about the issue they present to you with certainty that it is forbidden, or with certainty that it is permissible, or with certainty that it is obligatory, or recommended, or other rulings of the Shari'ah. You can ask them for the evidence. If they present the evidence to you, your heart is reassured by this ruling because it was presented accompanied by a Shari'ah proof. This is unlike if they said to you, "This is forbidden" or "This is lawful," in which case they have only presented their opinion naked and stripped of the Shari'ah proof. The one who takes this opinion of prohibition or otherwise, without it being accompanied by evidence, is practicing following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid), which is what we should try to get rid of as much as possible. The one who takes the issue accompanied by its Shari'ah proof from the Book or the Sunnah or independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) is the one who follows (muttabi'). And the one who presents the evidence, being a jurist in it from the Book and the Sunnah, is the one who performs independent legal reasoning (mujtahid). Therefore, it is not natural that we continue to direct such a question: "Is every Muslim obligated to perform independent legal reasoning (ijtihad)?" We say that every Muslim is obligated to have clarity regarding his religion. As for those obligated to perform independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), they are the people of knowledge. And the people of knowledge today, if they are found, the fair-minded among them in this issue explicitly state that they are not among the people of knowledge. This statement is not revealed by them except when scientific debates force them to say frankly, "We are not scholars." So where are these scholars? By their own admission, they have become a thing of the past. And so they admit that the door of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) has been closed. This means that the entire Muslim world, or at least the majority of it, lives in ignorance, not in a state of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). This is an innovation (bid'ah), because in the early period, not all individual Muslims were those who perform independent legal reasoning (mujtahids), nor did they live in a state of following (ittiba') with clarity, because they lived in a state of following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid). Is this the command of Islam? Did He say, "This is my path to Allah through following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid)" or through clarity? And you must remember that it is a point of agreement that the word "following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid)" equals ignorance. Following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) is ignorance; there is no disagreement between a follower of the Salaf and a follower of the Khalaf in this issue at all. All scholars say that following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) is ignorance. Therefore, we stated in some of the books of the Hanafis that the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence (muqallid) is not appointed as a judge, because the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence (muqallid) is ignorant, and the one who should be appointed as a judge must be knowledgeable of the Book and the Sunnah, meaning he must be one who performs independent legal reasoning (mujtahid). Therefore, the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence (muqallid) is not appointed as a judge because he is ignorant. And as I said, following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) is ignorance by the agreement of the scholars. So if it is said, "What remains of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad)?" that means the Muslim world today lives in very deep ignorance.
So what is the benefit of the existence of the Book and the Sunnah among the Ummah, and among those who are supposed to have knowledge and study of this Book and this Sunnah, when they say that no one is able to understand the Book and the Sunnah, so we live as those who follow a scholar without knowing his evidence (muqallids)? The matter has even reached the point where some of them take pride in being one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence (muqallid), forgetting that following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) is ignorance. Because I think that a person with even a grain of intellect cannot take pride in his ignorance. But he took pride in his following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid), and that is only because he forgot what the meaning of following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) is, because the word "following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid)" is not explicit in giving the meaning understood from the word "ignorance."
So no one is ignorant for the sake of ignorance, does he take pride in ignorance? But he may make an excuse, saying, "By Allah, I do not know."
As for someone taking pride in following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid), which equals ignorance as we mentioned, this is what some of the doctors (professors) in the present era have fallen into, because they forgot that following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) is ignorance itself. Therefore, I hope that this is clear to you all, and let the one present convey it to the one absent. On the other hand, do not ask too much: "Is every Muslim obligated to perform independent legal reasoning (ijtihad)?" Every Muslim is obligated to follow (ittiba'). As for independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), those who are supposed to be people of knowledge cannot do it today, by their own admission. So what do we say about the students who graduate under the hands of these scholars who are those who follow a scholar without knowing his evidence (muqallids), meaning they are ignorant? And as one of them said, they are scholars in name only, not in reality.
This is the state of the scholars in the present era. So what is the state of the students who graduate under the hands of these scholars, who are scholars in name only by their own admission? Therefore, memorize this verse and remember its general implication: It is obligatory for every Muslim who follows the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) with true following (ittiba') to have clarity regarding his religion. And unfortunately, this is not achieved except by those who are able to study the Book and the Sunnah and to clarify the truth from what people differ in, so that they can present this truth to the people. Perhaps among those who emphasize this is the fact that if the Muslim majority knows this truth, and because it is obligatory for them to be informed of their religion and have clarity of their affairs, perhaps what helps in spreading this clarification is that the majority demands of those they suppose to be knowledgeable that they clarify and explain the truth to them, so that they live with information and clarity regarding their religion. This is the answer to the previous question: "Is the Muslim obligated to perform independent legal reasoning (ijtihad)?" In brief, every Muslim is obligated to follow (ittiba'). As for independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), it is obligatory for the one who is able to do it. And as for following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid), it is forbidden in its entirety except in cases of dire necessity. This is the summary of the answer.