Clarification that it is not permissible to adhere to a specific school of jurisprudence from the four schools.

The Shaykh : We do not think it is permissible for a Muslim to adhere to a specific school of jurisprudence and to draw near to Allah by holding fast to the school of one of the imams of the Muslims, for two reasons:
The first is that this adherence to a school of jurisprudence—and I do not mean taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), so please pay attention; I am not saying that I do not see taqlid, rather I see taqlid as a necessity for the great scholars at times—but I say, and I repeat what I say: we do not see adherence to a school of jurisprudence through taqlid; that is, for a person to grow up knowing of his religion only his school, and his school is what? His father's school. There is no difference whether he is Sunni, or Shi'ah, or Zaydi, or Qadiani, or so on. We do not see this adherence to a school of jurisprudence through taqlid, because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) criticized the polytheists for their taqlid of their fathers. But we make obligatory upon every Muslim what Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) has made obligatory: if he is a scholar, he must take from the Book and the Sunnah, and if he is not a scholar, he must benefit from all the scholars, not from one scholar. I am a Hanafi, and it is perhaps well known to you that this is not the situation of the common people, but even the specialized scholars; a layman comes to ask one of the shaykhs about an issue, and he says to him: "What is your school?" He says: "Hanafi." He issues a fatwa according to the Hanafi school! Or Shafi'i; he issues a fatwa according to the Shafi'i school, if he has studied the schools. Otherwise, he issues a fatwa according to his own school and does not ask him: "What is your school?" because he does not know the schools. Whereas it is obligatory for the scholar to issue a fatwa with what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah said.
Here there is a long research topic: where did the imams take their rulings from? Yes, they took them from the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah, but is every imam and everything this imam took from the Book and the Sunnah correct? Then the correct rulings would multiply and the legal rulings would contradict each other!! Perhaps the well-known example today is: if one touches a woman, does the wudu' (ablution) break or not? The issue has two, or three, opinions: it breaks and it does not break; it breaks if it is with desire, and it does not break if it is without desire. In a third opinion, if it is... no, that is regarding the discharge of blood; meaning, in this issue there are only two opinions: if the touch is with desire, it breaks, otherwise it does not. The second opinion is that it does not break at all.
As for the discharge of blood, there are three opinions: it breaks at all, whether it is much or little, and this is the school of the Hanafis. The school of the Shafi'is is that it does not break at all, whether it is little or much. The school of the Hanbalis is that if it is much, it breaks, and if it is little, it does not break. These are opinions of the imams, without doubt, said through ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and they are all... but is it possible for these three contradictory opinions to be revelation from the sky? This is impossible; because among what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) described His Book with (Blessed and Exalted is He) is: , so the existence of much disagreement in one issue is proof that this disagreement is not from Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So where does this disagreement come from? It is ijtihad of the imams, so whoever is correct has two rewards, and whoever is wrong has one reward.
Therefore, we do not see that a person should adhere to a school of jurisprudence through taqlid; because it is possible that the second school is more correct in a certain issue than the school he lived by. The group of Najdis, those who are called Wahhabis, in creed nothing is ever taken against them, but in terms of adhering to a school, they are like the rest of the Muslims, except of course individuals, as is the case in all schools, who are great scholars that study the Shari'ah in light of the Book and the Sunnah and issue fatwas with what they know from the Book and the Sunnah; these are few here and there in all lands. But as a nation, or as a people, to be more precise linguistically, the Najdi people are Hanbali, and the Turkish people, for example, are Hanafi, the Moroccan people are Maliki, and the Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian people are Hanafi and Shafi'i; meaning, so and so, and so on. But these Najdis are spoken about a lot; because their creed is in reality based on the Book and the Sunnah, and they contradict the majority of the scholars of the Muslims now in many issues, including what was mentioned earlier incidentally; they do not say that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) burdens His servants with what they cannot bear; because this is the text of the Noble Qur'an. They do not say it is permissible for Allah to punish the obedient and reward the disobedient, and this is said by many of the scholars of kalam (theology).
I do not know if I answered your question. Welcome.

The questioner : ... the topic of the schools of jurisprudence.

The Shaykh : Excuse me, one word remains regarding the awliya (close friends of Allah) and the righteous people.