What is the ruling on following a specific school of jurisprudence?

The student : Naturally, the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) are known and there is no debate regarding them. The four schools of jurisprudence were established by jurists to clarify certain difficulties or to interpret what was reported in the Sunnah. So, are we, as Muslims, obligated to follow a specific school and not rely on anything that comes into our hands, or do we take what suits us from these schools?

The Shaykh : You, my professor, it is clear from your conversations that you always emphasize a certain issue and repeat it so that it is firmly established in the minds, or perhaps I have previously said that we do not see religion to be practiced through following a scholar without knowing his evidence, even though following a scholar without knowing his evidence may become obligatory for many scholars when they are ignorant of the Islamic ruling. The four Imams served Islam, interpreted the Qur'an, and explained the rulings derived from the Book and the Sunnah. This is a matter in which there is no problem, and it is something in which no two people differ, nor do two rams butt heads. However, what should be firmly established in the minds is that the independent legal reasoning of the Imams contains both error and correctness, and that distinguishing error from correctness is the function of scholars, not the function of the general public. Perhaps I mentioned in some sessions, and you may have been present, that Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) divided the Muslim community, in terms of its knowledge and ignorance, into two categories, as in His saying, the Exalted: . So there is a group of people of knowledge, and a group who do not know. He made obligatory upon each group a duty that is not obligatory upon the other. He made it obligatory for those who have no knowledge to ask the people of knowledge, and He made it obligatory for the people of knowledge to explain it and not conceal it from the people. SoThe questioner : the duty upon them is to ask the people of knowledge. He did not specify a particular person, saying for example, "Ask Abu Bakr, or 'Umar, or 'Uthman, or 'Ali." Rather, He said: . So when the Companions encountered an issue and did not know the ruling in it, they would meet Abu Bakr and ask him, or meet 'Umar and ask him, or ask Ibn Mas'ud, and so on. None of them said, "I am an Abu Bakrite and I only believe in the knowledge of Abu Bakr," or "I am an 'Uthmanite," or anything of the sort. Rather, they would ask whoever among the people of knowledge was available to them. So in practice, sometimes they would ask Abu Bakr, sometimes 'Umar, sometimes Ibn Mas'ud, and sometimes Ibn 'Umar, and so on. And so this is how the plan should proceed, because
"And all good is in following those who came before, and all evil is in the innovation of those who came after."
When the issue became partisan and sectarian, everyone aligned themselves with an imam and became fanatical about him. As a result, two harms emerged, one being a consequence of the other. The first harm is that one loses the knowledge of the other imams; he does not acknowledge them or benefit from them because he is clinging to this imam. And the same applies to the other people; each has his own imam, so they do not benefit from the knowledge of the other imams. As we have said and always say, our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) did not restrict His knowledge and favor to four imams in this Islamic world, which numbers in the millions, if not billions. There are not just four, but forty, four hundred, and four thousand, and as many as you wish. So when a person clings to the school of one of these imams, he loses the efforts, knowledge, and hadiths of the other imams and does not benefit from them at all. This is the first loss. The second loss, which is the fruit of the first as we said, is that blind partisanship occurs among people, similar to what happens among non-religious, nationalist, and communist people. This kind of conflict and disagreement occurs among religious people who follow by taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence). One says, "My imam is Abu Hanifa, who is the most knowledgeable and the greatest imam." You say, "Your imam is al-Shafi'i, who is smaller and not the greatest." On the contrary, al-Shafi'i is the greatest. This is all reality, not imagination or theory. There is a book written on this, which exists today and has been printed in several editions, titled "The Right School." It proves that the Shafi'i school is the right school. It also narrates a story that I believe is fictional, though it may be true. The king who is the cause of the story is portrayed as a clumsy fool, especially since he was Shi'ite. What does the story say? In the state of the Fatimids in Egypt, some scholars from the people of the Sunnah were able to influence the ruler. He was, of course, a Fatimid Shi'ite, and the man was convinced that that school was defective and that he had to adhere to one of the schools of the people of the Sunnah. When he was convinced of this initial point, he asked which school he had to adhere to after leaving the school of Shi'ism. They told him there are four schools from which he could choose whatever he wanted. As they say today, and their saying is not the truth, of course, "All of them are from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), seeking [guidance], and they do not distinguish between what they took from a verse or hadith and what they took through ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) and derivation, which is open to being right or wrong." So this king said, "Bring me two men from the scholars of the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools, and let each of them pray before me according to his school, and I will choose afterwards." The book claims that he asked for two scholars to be brought. The Hanafi scholar came wearing a tunic and a skinned, slaughtered dog hide turned inside out, with flies on it from all sides. This points to a view in the Hanafi school that if a dog is slaughtered and the name of Allah is mentioned, it becomes pure. So he slaughtered a dog in this manner, skinned it, put the hide on his body, and entered the state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage) without saying the takbir (saying Allahu akbar) because he had not yet said it. When it was time to say the takbir, he did not say "Allahu Akbar" in Arabic as is the Sunnah (the Prophet's way), but said it in Turkish, for example, "Kanduyik," or in Albanian, "Zot Yime," instead of "Allahu Akbar." This indicates that in the Hanafi school, it is permissible to enter the prayer with any phrase that contains glorification of Allah, even if it is not in Arabic. The Shafi'i school and others do not permit this. He wanted to recite . He bowed without reciting al-Fatihah (Surat al-Fatihah), because it is valid for them even if it is a short verse, and in another opinion, it must be a long verse. He bowed, and before he even bowed, he raised his head and said nothing. In summary, the story is that they took the worst prayer permitted in the Hanafi school. The joke is that the Hanafis say one must exit the prayer with a "victory" (a euphemism for passing gas), so instead of saying "Peace be upon you," he cursed his neighbor, and the prayer was valid. He cursed and insulted him. Why? Because he exited with his "victory." The story is amazing; instead of saying the salam (the closing salam of prayer), excuse me, he passed gas, because this is permissible in the Hanafi school. Now look at how that Shafi'i prayed. He wore clean clothes, perfumed himself, and stood with all politeness and humility. He said "Allahu Akbar," "I have turned my face," recited al-Fatihah and a surah, and so on. He bowed and was at ease, meaning a complete prayer. When two prayers of two schools are presented to any fool, which school would he choose? This one, where prayer is permitted with a skinned, slaughtered dog hide, or with a very short verse instead of recitation, or without glorifying Allah in the bowing and prostration, and ending with a fart? Who would choose this prayer over that? No one. So from that day, this man became a follower of the Shafi'i school. How can such a story be printed in a book titled "The Right School" and published and printed in Egypt? This is all just an example, and there are many more examples of what sectarianism in schools has done to Muslims. It is enough to say that even today, the text exists in the books of the Hanafis, including the book "Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqaiq." The question is: Is it permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i woman? The answer is no. Why? Because the Shafi'is doubt their faith. This is actually a long discussion related to 'ilm al-kalam (theology). If you ask a Shafi'i, "Are you a believer?" he says, "If Allah wills." If you ask a Hanafi the same thing, he says, "I am truly a believer." The one who says "I am truly a believer" doubts the faith of the one who says "I am a believer if Allah wills." The reason is that they differ in the definition of faith: does righteous deed enter into the definition of faith or not? It has been said and said. The Hanafis say faith is one thing and righteous deed is another. The Shafi'is say no, righteous deed is part of faith. And this is undoubtedly the correct view indicated by the texts of the Book and the Sunnah. From this disagreement stems the belief that faith has no relation to righteous deed. When you ask him what is in his heart, he knows he is a believer and therefore asserts that he is truly a believer, but this is based on his definition of faith, which does not include righteous deed in its meaning. The second one, the Shafi'i, and I am with them in this issue, says "I am a believer if Allah wills." Why? Because the concept of faith for him is broader; it includes righteous deeds. This is explicit in the Qur'an . And so on, to the end of the known verses. So when a Muslim who truly understands his creed says "I am truly a believer," it means he is humble and turns away from idle talk, and so on. Who can testify to himself with this testimony? No one. But the one who says that faith is only belief in the heart and affirmation with the tongue, where is that? He says "I am truly a believer," and some of them even said, "My faith is like the faith of Jibril (peace be upon him)." From this disagreement came the previous fatwa (a scholarly legal ruling) in response to the question: Is it permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i woman? It says to you, no. Why? Because the Shafi'is say "I am a believer if Allah wills," so they doubt their faith. They do not doubt their faith, but they doubt faith in the concept of righteous deed, not in the concept of faith according to the Hanafis. There was a time when the Hanafis would not marry Shafi'i women for perhaps fifty years, until a man known among the Hanafis came, who has a book today among the books of tafsir (Qur'anic exegesis), Tafsir Abu al-Su'ud. This Abu al-Su'ud, due to his fame in issuing fatwas, was called "The Mufti of the Two Groups" (humans and jinn), because they claimed that the jinn (the jinn) would come to him and seek his fatwa, and he would issue them. This virtuous scholar came, and the same previous question was asked: Is it permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i woman? Look at the answer, which is better or worse, this or that? He said, "It is permissible, by considering her in the position of the People of the Book." What do you think? The cause of this is sectarian partisanship in schools, where everyone holds that this school is the religion of Allah. Therefore, some Islamic countries do not know anything other than the Hanafi school, including our country, and under it, Istanbul, all of Turkey. They do not know anything other than the school of Abu Hanifa, neither in creed nor in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). In the other schools, in the marginal notes of Ibn 'Abidin, it says: "If we are asked about our school, we say our school is the truth that may contain error. And if we are asked about another school, we say it is error that may contain truth." Please.
The student : Regarding the Turks, in the Hanafi school, in the *Majallat al-Ahkam al-Adliyyah* (the Code of Obligations) which was established among the Turks and is still applied in some Arab countries, in the commentary by the scholar Ali Haydar, he says: "The rulings were not taken from the Hanafi school alone, but most of them were taken from the Hanafi school, and some from other schools, specifically the Hanbali, Shafi'i, and Maliki schools, where juristic preference (*istihsan*) was applied." This means that most of it was taken from the Hanafi school, but they were not opposed to the other schools; they took... the legislation...

The Shaykh : You have learned something, but you have missed other things. You are speaking about the *Majallah*, the rulings of the *Majallah*, contracts, marriage and divorce, and the like...
The student : Transactions.

The Shaykh : Transactions. You have expressed it well. I know about this *Majallah*; but is Islam only transactions? Of course not. They were forced to take some rulings from the other schools against their will; but in their worship, in their prayer, in their fasting, in their Hajj, in everything, they are one hundred percent Hanafi. I know this fact, and I said at the beginning of the session that when we spoke about divorce with the phrase "three times"—may Allah have mercy on you—we said that twenty years ago they were forced to abandon the ruling that divorce with the phrase "three times" is three divorces; because they noticed that this brings calamities and problems between spouses; so they adopted the view of Ibn Taymiyyah, not the view of one of the four schools. The four schools agree that if a man says to his wife, "You are divorced three times," she is divorced from him with a major final divorce; and this was the practice for many long centuries. In the modern era, they adopted the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah, who struggled in the path of Allah and convinced the scholars and the general public that this is considered one divorce. He has very strong words. He says that the one who says to his wife, "You are divorced three times," is like a man who has a right of three dinars against another man. He says to the man who owes him, "Here are three dinars," but in reality he hands him only one dinar. The action is one, the phrase is three. He says, "Take these three dinars." What did he give him? He gave him one dinar in practice, three in words. And the example, perhaps, is clearer: instead of saying "Glory be to Allah" thirty-three times, he prolongs it a bit and hurries, saying "Glory be to Allah" thirty-three times. What is recorded for him? It is recorded for him once. Thirty-three is idle talk. So the statement of the divorcer, "You are divorced three times," is legally idle talk. Why? We mentioned to you previously . In every divorce, there is either retention in kindness or release with honor. The point is, may Allah reward you, the *Majallah* took some rulings out of necessity, not out of faith, as they did in the recent time when they took the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah out of necessity to solve the problems of spouses who divorce with one word, "Go, you are divorced." Every time a Shaykh solves it for you, a Shaykh forbids it, and so on, from these ignorances. I know some judges in the Sharia courts in our Damascus who used to oppose me because I issue fatwas based on the Sunnah, while he in the Sharia court issues a fatwa that the triple divorce is considered three, and I issue my fatwa based on the Sunnah. He used to oppose me. After a while, he returned and took the fatwa we were discussing. Why? Is it because their faith is that this is the Sunnah? No, to solve the problems of people. So the *Majallah* you are praising took some rulings out of necessity, not out of faith that this is the correct one. Therefore, we want from the Muslims...
The student : Juristic preference (*istihsan*).

The Shaykh: Yes.
The student : Juristic preference (*istihsan*).

The Shaykh : This is also *istihsan*; what is its grammatical status among the jurists? Imam al-Shafi'i says: "Whoever exercises *istihsan* has legislated." He strikes it like this rule that exists among the Hanafis. He says: . The conclusion, Professor, is that religious adherence to a specific school was a calamity for the Muslims. And perhaps you know that in the Umayyad Mosque in our Damascus, there are four *mihrabs*, and these are the effects of school adherence. The Hanafi imam, in the time of the Turks, was the first; in the time of the President of the Syrian Republic,The Shaykh : Taj al-Husayni, who is the father ofThe Shaykh : Badr al-Din, ordered that the Shafi'i be advanced because his school is Shafi'i. These are tribal loyalties. I experienced that when the imam was Hanafi, in Ramadan he would be the imam for the Witr prayer, and most people would pray behind him. Shafi'i people would make a row for themselves alone. The mosque is large, as you know. At the time the Hanafi imam was praying, the Shafi'i imam would pray the Witr at the same time. The situation reversed in the time ofThe Shaykh : Taj, the first imam became the Shafi'i, and consequently he would pray the Witr, and all people were with him except a few who were loyal to the Hanafi school and wanted to make an imam. Allah says in the clear Qur'an: . Therefore, we call for the Muslim's goal to always and forever be following the Book and the Sunnah. If he is a scholar, he takes the Book and the Sunnah as his head; and if he is not a scholar, he asks the people of knowledge, as in the previous verse , without being loyal to a person, whether living or dead. This was the way of our righteous predecessors, and this is how we walk in their footsteps. And it was said long ago:
The Shaykh : "And all good is in following those who came before, and all evil is in the innovation of those who came after." And all guidance comes to us from our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. And do you allow me to leave?