Explanation of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “And whoever issues a fatwa without a firm basis, the sin is upon the one who issued it,” and the Shaykh’s remarks on the necessity of a fatwa based on the Book and the Sunnah, and the danger of issuing a fatwa without correct knowledge, giving examples of this, and pointing out the issue of judging by other than what Allah has revealed.

The Shaykh : The third and final part of this hadith is the saying of him (peace and blessings be upon him) . In this part, there is a specific ruling concerning scholars who engage in issuing fatwas to people. This is a matter that is heavy on the scale of the saying of his Lord to his Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) . This is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) made it obligatory for the one seeking a ruling not to rush into issuing a fatwa, but rather to be careful. Being careful means knowing the ruling from the Book of Allah and from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). If he issues a fatwa without this care, which is referring to the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah, and the one seeking a ruling builds his opinion on the mufti’s opinion and fatwa, and he had issued it with sin, then the sin is upon the mufti. From here, we arrive at a serious and very serious issue: when a scholar is asked about a matter and issues a fatwa without relying on the Book and the Sunnah, he is issuing a fatwa without a firm basis, because the hadith says , meaning without a chain, without proof, and without evidence. It is known to every Muslim that the evidence in Islam is nothing but the Book and the Sunnah, or what is derived from them by scholarly consensus and correct analogical reasoning. So, whoever issues a fatwa without a firm basis, meaning without evidence from the Book of Allah or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) as detailed above, has issued a fatwa without guidance and without evidence. In that case, the sin of the one seeking a ruling at that time is upon the mufti. So what is obligatory for the mufti? He must be careful above all else and not rush in issuing a fatwa. This means he must review the matter if he has not reviewed it. How does he review it, and where does he derive the correct answer to what he was asked? By referring to the Book and the Sunnah, because the hadith says , meaning without evidence. And what is the evidence in Islam is the Qur'an and the Sunnah, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said . So, what do you think of one who is asked about a matter or a case and issues a fatwa based on the opinion of a scholar, whichever scholar it is, while he knows that there are two or more opinions in the matter? Did he issue a fatwa with a firm basis? With evidence?
Whoever issues a fatwa based on the opinion of so-and-so, while he knows that there are two or more opinions in the matter, has he issued a fatwa with a firm basis, with evidence, and with proof? The answer is no, because when the matter is one of the disputed issues, scholars have issued two or more opinions in it. He issued a fatwa with one of the opinions without supporting his fatwa, at least in his own mind, with a verse from the Book of Allah or a hadith from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Thus, he has not issued a fatwa based on a firm basis, evidence, or proof. His fatwa with this error does not make the sin fall on the one seeking a ruling, but rather on the mufti. So the sin is upon him. Therefore, every one seeking a ruling must be careful in his fatwa, meaning he must base his fatwa on the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). The meaning of this scholarly statement in clear and distinct terms is that the one seeking a ruling, or the scholar, if he is asked about a certain matter, let us give an example of that.
A man asked him: Does the emergence of blood invalidate the ablution? He said: Yes, meaning that this is the Hanafi school, and this is how he issues a fatwa. So, if we refer to this hadith, we understand that the sin of this answer is upon him, not on the one seeking a ruling. Why?
Because there are two other opinions in this matter. The Hanafi school rules that the ablution is invalid as soon as blood emerges from its place. The Shafi'i school says that blood does not invalidate the ablution at all, no matter how much it is. The school of Imam Malik and Ahmad distinguishes, saying that if the blood is much, it invalidates the ablution, otherwise it does not.
So, the one who issued a fatwa saying it invalidates the ablution, where is the evidence? And the matter is disputed, and Allah the Exalted says . Therefore, it is not permissible for a Muslim who follows one school of jurisprudence, if he is asked about a matter, to issue a fatwa based on his school, because there are other schools. So, he must refrain from issuing a fatwa. If he issues a fatwa, he has sinned, as evidenced by this hadith, which is his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying , meaning without a chain and evidence . So, the one who says that the emergence of blood invalidates the ablution, or does not invalidate it, or invalidates it if much and does not invalidate it if little, whichever answer it is, if its holder did not rely on a chain from the Book and the Sunnah, the sin is upon him, not on the one seeking a ruling. Why? Because the one seeking a ruling fulfilled his obligation when his Lord said to him . This one who does not know came to one he thought was among the people of knowledge, so he asked him, and he issued a fatwa for him. So the sin is upon this mufti.
This mufti, when he is asked, must fear Allah the Exalted and not issue a fatwa except based on a firm basis, evidence, and a chain. If he does not do so, he has sinned. Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) pointed out this reality when he said “It is not permissible for a man to issue a fatwa with my opinion unless he knows from where I took my evidence”. This is a text from Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), the first of the four imams, who explains this hadith for us.
This hadith says that whoever issues a fatwa without a firm basis, the sin is upon him, not on the one seeking a ruling. So, Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) says “It is not permissible for a man to issue a fatwa with my words unless he knows from where I took my evidence”. So, this Hanafi who was asked: Does blood, when it emerges, invalidate the ablution? And he answered: Yes. This is not permissible for him by the ruling of this hadith and the ruling of the aforementioned Imam, because he did not know his evidence. And the meaning of this, or the result of this hadith, is the obligation to study the Book and the Sunnah so that the mufti can issue a fatwa with evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, so that sin does not befall him, and so that he is saved from what if he errs in the fatwa. Because it is not the meaning of one who issues a fatwa relying on the Book and the Sunnah that he is infallible from error. No.
But if he exercises independent legal reasoning and issues a fatwa with what he understood from the Book and the Sunnah, he has two cases: either he hit the mark, and he has two rewards, or he erred, and he has one reward. But this, meaning the two rewards if he hit the mark and the one reward if he erred, is only for the one who issues a fatwa relying on the Book and the Sunnah. As for the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence, and following a scholar without knowing his evidence is ignorance by the consensus of scholars, and he does not look into the fatwa, this one has no reward, not even one reward, but rather he has a burden, because he issued a fatwa without a firm basis, without proof and evidence.
The conclusion of this hadith is the obligation to refer to the Book and the Sunnah in every ruling a scholar issues. From here, we arrive at a very serious issue, which is what has occurred in many Islamic countries today. I mean the Islamic countries that have fallen into this problematic situation, such as Syria and Egypt, where they have compelled judges and rulers to judge and issue rulings based on a specific school of jurisprudence, either the Majalla previously, or the laws recently established with some modification... The Majalla previously, this is regarding the judges. As for the mufti, he is required to issue rulings while adhering to the Hanafi school. This is compelling what is not obligatory. First, this is an order that is the opposite of what this hadith indicates. If a mufti is asked for a ruling, he must refer to the Book and the Sunnah. He does not look to the school of jurisprudence in which his imam spoke. It is not permissible for him to issue a ruling until he knows its evidence. This mufti who is restricted to issuing rulings based on his school of jurisprudence and does not refer to the scriptural evidence issues rulings based on what is in the school. I give an example of this: a ruling was issued, which I personally read, by one of the former muftis in these lands, stating that it is permissible for a Muslim to store pork in the large refrigerators of the Christians, because one of the good Muslims has a huge refrigerator in which he stores fruits, meats, and the like. An Armenian man came to him and offered him a high fee in exchange for storing his pork in this refrigerator. So the Muslim, meaning his heart was troubled, meaning he was uncertain about this action and whether it is permissible in Islam for a Muslim to store forbidden pork. He went to ask the mufti. The mufti told him to come back after a few days. He came, and the mufti gave him the ruling. The ruling is actually both laughable and tearful at the same time, because first, it was a ruling without certainty, so it was without proof. Second, it was a ruling in the style of politicians, with elastic speech where one can answer this way or that way. The mufti ruled that it was stated in such-and-such book of the Hanafi school, which he issues rulings from, "Even if a Muslim were hired by a dhimmi to transport wine for him, it would be permissible for him to do so, and his wage would be pure". And so-and-so also said in the school that it is permissible, but with dislike. Then he cited another citation, saying if a Muslim builder were hired by a Christian to build a church for him, it would be permissible and his wage would be pure. He cited these contradictory citations. In the end, he did not tell the questioner whether it is permissible for him to store pork or not, or whether the wage is lawful for him or not. Instead, he said, "From what has preceded, you can know the answer to your question!" So the answer contains two sins. The first sin is that he did not say, "Allah said" or "The Messenger of Allah said," ever, even though the issue is one of the clearest issues for one who has knowledge and jurisprudence in the Book and the Sunnah. The other issue is that he confused him by giving him two opinions: one that the wage is pure for you, but a second opinion that it is disliked. And dislike in the Hanafi school, when stated absolutely, is for prohibition. If this mufti had referred, as this hadith obligated him to issue a ruling for the questioner based on certainty, proof, and guidance, if he had referred to the Book and the Sunnah, he would have found, for example, in the Noble Qur'an . This is cooperation in aggression and disobedience to the Blessed and Exalted is He. And he would have found in Sahih Muslim his saying, peace and blessings be upon him, . So he cursed everyone who assists in eating riba (usury or interest). And also in the authentic hadith, . Ten types of people, starting with the drinker and ending with the carrier of wine. This is because they all cooperate in drinking wine, which is the original sin. Drinking wine, but drinking wine cannot happen without selling wine, and selling wine cannot happen without buying it, and buying wine cannot happen without buying grapes, and buying grapes cannot become wine except by pressing them, and this juice cannot become wine, because it may become vinegar, except by handling it in a technical way until it becomes wine. Once it becomes wine, it cannot be drunk from shops and stores except by being transported from the press to the wine seller, and so on. Because all of these people assist the drinker of wine in drinking wine, they were all cursed. How could this be hidden from one who has knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah, yet he issues a ruling to that questioner that it is permissible to store pork? So the calamity today is that the ruling is imposed that one must issue rulings from a book that is not the Book and the Sunnah. And judges must issue rulings from laws. If only they were purely legal laws, as was the case in the time of the Majalla, where all or most of it was from the Hanafi school. But today, there are man-made laws that did not descend from the sky but emerged from the earth. These rulings were imposed on Muslim judges to judge by them among Muslims. This is a calamity that has befallen the Syrian and Egyptian lands, and perhaps in other lands where we do not know the true state of affairs. Now, there are callers who call for codifying the rulings, meaning following the Syrian and Egyptian states and imposing certain opinions and ideas on the judges who rule there by the Book and the Sunnah. This is a calamity, a new calamity. We hope to Allah, Mighty and Majestic, that it does not materialize in those lands. But every Muslim must know this truth, which is that it is not permissible to issue rulings except from the Book of Allah and the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah, just as it is not permissible to judge except by deriving from the Book of Allah or the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him. So in this hadith, there is a warning regarding matters that concern us and concern the community that appoints muftis and judges who rule by other than what Allah has revealed. And all of these forget the severe warning mentioned in three verses of the Noble Qur'an: . These are explicit verses of blame, indeed ruling with disbelief for one who does not judge by what Allah has revealed. But here is a short word: judging by what Allah has revealed includes a ruling that is equivalent to apostasy, and includes rulings that do not necessitate apostasy. The detail we mentioned regarding lying about the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, must also be kept in mind in interpreting these three verses. Ibn Abbas said, "Disbelief less than disbelief". He said in the interpretation of "disbelievers" in this verse, "Disbelief less than disbelief," meaning that disbelief is of two types: creedal, heart-based disbelief, and practical disbelief. This is what many Muslims today are unaware of, especially the young generation. They assume that everyone who does not judge by what Allah has revealed is an apostate from his religion. It is not so. Rather, one must look at the ruler who judges by other than what Allah has revealed. If he judges by other than what Allah has revealed, considering it permissible in his heart and preferring it over the ruling of Allah and the ruling of His Prophet, then this is the one who becomes an apostate from his religion. But if, deep in his heart, he believes that judging by what Allah has revealed is the correct and obligatory thing, but Allah guides us to people, how do we direct them? He finds an excuse for them, even if it is an unacceptable excuse. His excuse with this excuse indicates that he believes in the ruling of Allah and the ruling of His Messenger that it is the correct thing, but he deviated from this ruling, as many people deviate from it, about whom good is thought. The Muslim ruler who judges by the Book of Allah and the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah is not infallible. He may err in a ruling, for example, by being bribed and ruling for the briber with what is not his right. Then the saying of the Exalted applies to him: . But in what sense? Are those disbelievers in the sense of apostasy or in the sense of sin? We look: if, when he was bribed and ruled for the briber with what is not his right, he believes that he is sinful in himself, as he believes the deceiver, the thief, and the fornicator, etc., are sinful, then he has sinned but is not a disbeliever. This is the meaning of "disbelief less than disbelief." And if he says, as many young people who have been educated with foreign culture say, when faith has not entered their hearts, "No Islam, no faith, no backwardness, no..." etc., then he has placed the cover of disbelief on his head, and he is destined for Hellfire, and what an evil destination.
Therefore, it is obligatory for us to know that it is obligatory for the Muslim to judge by what Allah has revealed and by what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) interpreted and clarified. Whether one is an ordinary mufti, meaning a person walking on the road who is asked a question, he must be careful and not say to him "forbidden" or "lawful" unless he has studied in the Book of Allah that it is forbidden or lawful. The official, employed mufti is even more obligated not to issue fatwas to people without wisdom, without clear evidence, and without proof. And judging is even more obligated to be based on what came in the Book of Allah and what came from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Due to the gravity of judging by the Book and the Sunnah, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the authentic hadith: because he judged out of ignorance.
Therefore, judging must be by the Book and the Sunnah. If one judges by the Book and the Sunnah, he is the one who is saved. If he judges contrary to what is known from the Book and the Sunnah, he has sinned. And if he judges out of ignorance, meaning by the Book and the Sunnah, but out of ignorance of the Hanafi school or the Shafi'i school, because that is the knowledge, therefore Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and I conclude our lesson with his words, he said:
"Knowledge is: Allah said, His Messenger said *** The Companions said; it is not deception
Knowledge is not: you setting up foolish disagreement *** Between the Messenger and the opinion of a jurist
No, and neither denying the attributes and negating them *** out of fear of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) and tashbih (likening Allah to creation) " And all praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.