Which of the schools of jurisprudence is closest to the truth, making its study the best for a student of knowledge?

The questioner : All right, the second point: if we assume it is permissible to study a school of jurisprudence as a study in itself... which of the schools is better and more beneficial for a student of knowledge seeking references?

The Shaykh : Al-Shafi'i and Ahmad. Al-Shafi'i and Ahmad, because they are much closer to the Sunnah. As for Ahmad, it is because he had a broader knowledge than all the Imams, and this is a fact known by everyone who has studied the Sunnah. And Al-Shafi'i, although he was well-versed in a large portion of the Sunnah, was stronger than Imam Ahmad in his knowledge of the Arabic language and its literature, and then in the principles of jurisprudence. He was the first to write a book on the principles of jurisprudence, which is the book known as *Al-Risalah*. Therefore, a student of knowledge benefits from the jurisprudence of one and the hadith of the other, combining the good of both men. It is established from Imam Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), and this is a sign of the fairness of the Imams, their excellence, and their fear of their Lord, that he said: "O Ahmad, you are more knowledgeable about hadith than I am. So if a sound hadith comes to you, inform me of it, whether it is from Hijaz, Sham, or Egypt." Perhaps he mentioned other lands as well. In this is a subtle point or indication from Imam Al-Shafi'i regarding not following Imam Malik, the Imam of the City of Migration, in blind imitation. Malik preferred the hadiths of Hijaz over the hadiths of all other lands, and he had a perspective on this, considering that it was the residence of the elite of the Companions, where the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was in Madinah, and where the great Companions settled and some of them died there, such as Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them). But it is historically known that many of the Companions traveled to other lands and carried with them the knowledge in their hearts that they had received from their Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So this knowledge in their hearts should not be disregarded. Therefore, Al-Shafi'i said, "You are more knowledgeable about hadith than I am." Why? Because Al-Shafi'i resided in Makkah and then traveled to Egypt, where he benefited from new knowledge he had not previously possessed. Therefore, he had two schools: the old and the new. Merely because he moved from one region to another, the scope of his information expanded, and he came to have two schools. So what does one say about Imam Ahmad, who traveled the lands east, west, north, and south in order to seek knowledge from scholars who narrated it with chains of transmission from the Companions who had dispersed to various lands due to the Islamic conquests? "O Ahmad, if a sound hadith comes to you, inform me of it, for you are more knowledgeable about it than I am, whether it is from Hijaz, Sham, or Egypt." However, in terms of derivation and understanding of texts and verses, Imam Al-Shafi'i is more knowledgeable than Imam Ahmad, according to the testimony of everyone who has studied his life. Therefore, the one who wants to study a school of jurisprudence for the purpose mentioned in the previous question and answer should choose the school of Imam Al-Shafi'i and the school of Imam Ahmad. Add to this another thing: Imam Al-Shafi'i has a distinction in his followers that is not found in the followers of the others. His followers are more numerous and more eager to follow the rule of all the Imams, which is: "If a hadith is sound, it is my school." Among the Shafi'is, there are many groups who appeared among the Shafi'is by contradicting Imam Al-Shafi'i in many issues, whereas you hardly see a person among the scholars who came after the Hanafis or the Malikis who contradicted their Imams, following their text, which is the principle: "If a hadith is sound, it is my school." So the one who studies the Shafi'i school benefits from these new studies that occurred among the followers of Imam Al-Shafi'i, who had before their eyes his saying: "If a hadith is sound, it is my school." And another distinction found in the Shafi'is is that there are more hadith scholars among them than hadith scholars in the Hanafi school who are pointed out with the finger, whereas the Hanafis who have knowledge of hadith are very few, while in the Shafi'i school there are many. You will find in the Shafi'i school books tracing the hadiths of the Shafi'i school, whereas you will not find in the Hanafi school except one book, which is *Nasb al-Ra'yah li-Ahadith al-Hidayah*. Yes.

The questioner : The books, is there a summary of the hadith...?

The Shaykh : Of course, there are many books. Ibn al-Muqin preceded in summarization. And you have the tracing by al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi, for example, of *Ihya 'Ulum al-Din* by al-Ghazali, and al-Zarkashi. There are many books tracing their hadiths. I referred to some of them in the introduction to *Al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah*. The truth is, these are distinctions that elevate the status of the Shafi'i school and place it in the forefront for the one who wants to study one of the four schools. The Hanafi school has a distinction that amazes other people, which is that it makes much use of opinion. And this aspect amazes the moderns today who want to make religion responsive to desires and requests that vary according to time and place. They are more pleased with this school than with the other schools, especially the school of Imam Ahmad, which prefers the Sunnah over anything else. Please.