If a student of knowledge is not qualified to prefer one opinion over another in a matter, or if he is qualified but unable to make a preference, what should he do?

The Shaykh : If you mean the general public, the scholars say that the general public have no school of jurisprudence; their school is the school of their mufti. But if you mean scholars and students of knowledge who follow the words of Allah the Exalted: . Then this scholar and that oneThe student : should seek the truth among the matters in which people differ. Wherever his research leads him, he should stop there, discard doubt, and take hold of certainty. Opening the door to doubt has no end, and as you know, it is among the whispers of Satan. If a person does not have an opinion, he should take the precautionary path. However, taking the precautionary path in many matters leads to difficulty, because one might say, for example, "read," while another opposes this by saying, "do not read." Therefore, one must seek the truth and exert independent legal reasoning to the best of his ability. Independent legal reasoning differs from scholar to student of knowledge, to the layman, each according to his capacity, and . Doubt has no value in the Shari'ah; nor is it among the scriptural proofs to be considered or heeded.


The questioner : But if the student of knowledge means that he has not established the principles through which he can prefer one opinion over another, or through which his heart can be reassured by an opinion; then his position is unclear, meaning he has not studied the issues, meaning the arguments of these are strong and the arguments of those are strong; he has not yet acquired the tools by which he can make a preference. What is his position?

The Shaykh : He follows a scholar without knowing his evidence.

The questioner : This is the ruling for one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence.

The Shaykh : He follows a scholar without knowing his evidence, and this is necessary. We say that the difference between our call and what the masses of our Muslim brothers are upon is that the masses have made following a scholar without knowing his evidence a religion, whereas we make it a necessity. And there is a great difference between the two. They made it a religion, so they forgot "Allah said" and "the Messenger of Allah said." In fact, they often fight those who say "Allah said" and "the Messenger of Allah said," because this direction has become forgotten due to religion based on following a scholar without knowing his evidence. As for a person, as I described earlier, who is lost between "it was said" and "it was said," where one has an opinion and evidence, and another has an opinion and evidence, and perhaps there is a third and fourth opinion, and he is lost among them; this person must follow a scholar without knowing his evidence. It is a condition for following a scholar without knowing his evidence that he first avoids following desire, which they refer to as seeking dispensations. Second, he should follow one whom he believes to be more knowledgeable, more God-fearing, and more righteous, and similar qualities that make one scholar preferable to another. So following a scholar without knowing his evidence is a necessity, and it is not permissible to make it a religion. This seems to me exactly like analogical reasoning, which is one of the four scriptural proofs: the Book, the Sunnah, scholarly consensus, and analogical reasoning. But analogical reasoning, as Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said, is "for necessity." This is well known among jurists when they say, "When a report from a Companion or successor comes, reasoning is invalid, and when the river of Allah comes, the river of Ma'qil is invalid." They also say, "There is no independent legal reasoning in the presence of an explicit text." But there is a difference, despite their agreement on this, "there is no independent legal reasoning in the presence of an explicit text," in the use of analogical reasoning. There is one who is lenient, opposed by one who denies analogical reasoning from its origin, and they are the Zahiris. And those who take a middle path between those lenient ones and those deniers—and peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings, welcome Abu 'Adil—those who take a middle path between these and those are the people of hadith, among them Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), who says, "There is no analogical reasoning except in necessity." So likewise, "There is no following a scholar without knowing his evidence except in necessity," when one does not find the text from the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah—and this address is for the scholar, let alone the student of knowledge, let alone one below him—when he does not find the text in the Book or the Sunnah, he must follow one who is more knowledgeable than him. Therefore, we read in the biography of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) that some of them would follow others and trust them, without arguing or discussing, contrary to what some extremists in following the Book and Sunnah imagine, where they say in independent legal reasoning in every big and small matter. This is a mistake, because it is necessary for every person, no matter how high he rises in knowledge, that some knowledge eludes him, verifying the words of Allah the Exalted: . So in this case, he must follow the scholar in whose knowledge he trusts. So our issue is of this type: whoever does not see the correct direction among these different opinions should follow the scholar in whose knowledge he trusts, whether the opinion is about the pillar in this issue, or about the prohibition of reading behind the imam, or taking a middle path between this and that. He should take the opinion of one in whose knowledge, virtue, and precedent in that matter he is reassured.