Is it obligatory for us as Muslims to follow one of the four schools of jurisprudence, or are we permitted to take from those schools what suits us?

The questioner : The reference point, of course, is well known: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); there is no debate about that. The four schools of jurisprudence are the work of jurists to clarify certain independent legal reasoning or to interpret what has come in the Sunnah. So, are we as Muslims obligated to adhere to a specific school, or do we rely on whatever comes into our hands, or do we take from the schools what suits us?

The Shaykh : What are you asking? It is clear from your words that you always emphasize a point and repeat it so that it is firmly established in the minds, good. Otherwise, I have previously said: We do not see religion being 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 do not know the Islamic legal 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 with no problem, and it is something in which two people do not differ, nor do two goats butt heads. But what should be firmly established in the minds is that the independent legal reasoning of the Imams contains error and correctness, and distinguishing error from correctness is the function of scholars, not the function of the general public. Perhaps I mentioned in some sessions, and you were present in them, that I may have said: Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) divided the Muslim community, in terms of its knowledge and ignorance, into two categories, as in His saying (Mighty and Majestic): He made obligatory for each of the two categories a duty that is not obligatory for 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. So the questioners, it is obligatory for them to ask the people of knowledge; He did not specify for them a particular person. He did not say to them, for example: "Ask Abu Bakr or 'Umar or 'Uthman or 'Ali." Rather, He said: . So when the Companions encountered a matter in which they did not know the ruling, 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; I do not believe except in the knowledge of Abu Bakr," or "I am an 'Umarite or an 'Uthmanite." There is nothing of this ever. Rather, they would ask whoever among the people of knowledge was available. So the reality is that sometimes they would ask Abu Bakr, sometimes 'Umar, sometimes Ibn Mas'ud, sometimes Ibn 'Umar, and so on. And so the plan should proceed; because:
"And all good is in following those who came before, *** And all evil is in following those who came after."
When the matter became sectarian and school-based, everyone became partisan to an Imam and fanatical for him. As a result, two harms emerged, one of which is the fruit of the first. The first harm is that he lost the knowledge of the other Imams; he does not acknowledge them or benefit from them, because he is clinging to this Imam. And say to the other people, each one has his Imam, so they do not benefit from the other Imams. Knowing that the Imams, as we have said and always say, our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) did not limit His knowledge and His favor to four Imams in this Muslim world which numbers millions, if not billions. There are not just four, but forty, four hundred, four thousand, and count as much 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 sectarianism will occur among the religious people, just as it occurs among non-religious people, nationalists, and communists, and so on. This kind of conflict and disagreement occurs among those who practice religion through following a scholar without knowing his evidence. One says: "My Imam is Abu Hanifa; he is the greatest Imam. Your Imam is al-Shafi'i; he is smaller, and this one is not the greatest." The other reverses the case and says: "The greatest Imam is al-Shafi'i." And all of this is reality, not imagination, not something theoretical. There is someone who authored a book, and the book exists today, printed in several editions, titled "The True School." In it, he proves that the Shafi'i school is the true school. He narrates there a story that I believe is fictional, and if it is real, then the king who was the cause of the story must have been a clumsy fool, especially since he was a Shi'i. Because 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 a ruler who was, of course, a Fatimid Shi'i. The man was convinced that that school was defective and that he had to adhere to a school from the schools of the people of the Sunnah. When he was convinced of this initial conviction, he asked: "Which school must I adhere to after I left the school of Shi'ism?" They said to him: "There are four schools, so choose from them what you wish." And as they say today—and their saying is not the truth, of course: "And all of them are seeking from the Messenger of Allah," they do not distinguish between what they took from a verse or a hadith, or what they took by independent legal reasoning and derivation, which is open to correctness and error. So this king said: "Bring me two men from the scholars of the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools. Let each of them pray in front of me according to his school, and I will choose afterwards." This book claims they brought two scholars. The Hanafi scholar came wearing a leather coat made from a ritually slaughtered dog, turned inside out, and flies were crawling on him from all sides. This points to an opinion in the Hanafi school that if one slaughters a dog and says: "In the name of Allah," it becomes pure. So he slaughtered a dog in this way, flayed it, put the skin on his body, and entered the state of consecration. I do not say: "He said the takbir," because he had not yet said the takbir. When it was time for him to say the takbir, he did not say in the Arabic language: "Allah is the Greatest," as is the Sunnah and the command. He said in the Turkish language—for example: "Tanrı büyük," or in Albanian: "...". He did not say: "Allah is the Greatest." He indicated by this that it is permissible in the Hanafi school 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 had to recite: and he bowed. He did not recite al-Fatihah; because it is valid with them even if it is a short verse, and in another opinion it must be a long verse. He bowed, and before he had finished bowing, he raised his head and said nothing.
The summary: The story, in brief, is that they took from the Hanafi school the worst prayer they permit. The joke is that the Hanafis say: It is obligatory to exit the prayer with one's own action. If, instead of saying: "Peace be upon you," he cursed his neighbor, the prayer is valid!

The questioner : He cursed him?!

The Shaykh : He cursed him, he insulted him; why? Because he exited with his own action.
The story is not like that. Instead of saying the taslim—and no offense—he farted. Because this is permissible in the Hanafi school. Look at how that Shafi'i prayed? He wore clean clothes and perfumed himself, and stood with all politeness and humility. "Allah is the Greatest," "I have turned my face," he recited al-Fatihah, and recited the surah, and so on. He bowed and was calm and recited; meaning a complete prayer. When two prayers of two schools are presented in front of any fool, who would choose? The first school that permits prayer with the skin of a ritually slaughtered dog, or does not recite, but only a very short verse, and does not remember Allah in the bowing and prostration, and then ends with a fart? Who would prefer this prayer over that one? No one. So from that day, what did this man become? A Shafi'i in school!!
How is a story like this printed in a book under the title "The Right Path," and published and printed in Egypt...? This is all just an example, and there are far, far more examples. What has religious adherence to a specific school of jurisprudence done to the Muslims! Is it not enough that even today the text exists in the books of the Hanafis, such as the book "Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqaiq"? Question: Is it permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i? He said: No. Why? Because the Shafi'is doubt their faith. This is actually a long discussion related to the science of theology (kalam). If you ask a Shafi'i, "Are you a believer?" he says, "If Allah wills." If you say the same thing to a Hanafi, "Are you a believer?" he says, "I am truly a believer." The one who says, "I am truly a believer," doubts the faith of the one who says, "If Allah wills." The reason is that they differ in the definition of faith: does righteous deed enter into the term "faith" or not? There has been much said on this. 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 position, as indicated by the texts of the Book and the Sunnah.
Branching from this disagreement is the belief of the one who holds that faith has no connection to righteous deed. When you ask him about what is in his heart, he knows that he is a believer; therefore, he asserts and tells you, "I am truly a believer." But this is based on his definition of faith, which does not include righteous deed in its term. That other one, the Shafi'i—and I am with them in this issue—tells you, "I am a believer, if Allah wills." Why? Because the concept of faith for him is broader; it includes righteous deeds. And this is explicit in the Qur'an: up to the end of the well-known verses. So when a Muslim who truly understands his creed says, "I am truly a believer," it means he is humble in his prayer, he turns away from idle talk, he, he, he. Who is able to testify to himself with this testimony? No. But the one who says, "Faith is only belief in the heart and affirmation by the tongue," where is that? He says, "I am truly a believer." In fact, some of them said, "My faith is like the faith of Jibril (peace be upon him)!!"
From this disagreement came the previous fatwa, which was an answer to a question from someone who asked: Is it permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i? He tells you: No. Why? Because she says, "I am a believer, if Allah wills." She is doubting her faith! She is not doubting her faith; she is doubting faith in the sense of righteous deed, not faith in the sense of the Hanafis. And there was a time when the Hanafis would go perhaps fifty years without a Hanafi marrying a Shafi'i, until a man known among the Hanafis came, who has a book today among the books of exegesis, "Tafsir Abu al-Su'ud." This "Abu al-Su'ud" was called the Mufti of the Two Creations due to his fame in issuing fatwas, because they claimed that the jinn used to seek his fatwa and he would issue it to them. The turn came for this noble scholar, and he was asked the same previous question: Is it permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i? Look at the answer: is it better or worse than the previous one? This one or that one? He said: Yes, it is permissible, by placing her in the position of the People of the Book! What do you think? The cause of all this is sectarianism in the schools of jurisprudence, where each person holds that his school is the religion of Allah. Therefore, now some Islamic countries do not recognize anything other than the Hanafi school, including our country, and under it, all of Istanbul, Turkey, where they do not know any school other than the school of Abu Hanifa, neither in creed nor in jurisprudence, nor the other schools.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The other schools—if you allow me to finish the word—in "Hashiyat Ibn 'Abidin": If we are asked about our school, we say: Our school is truth that may contain error. And if we are asked about another school, we say: It is error that may contain truth.
Please.