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

The Shaykh : To summarize, we continue with the answer. Every Muslim must follow a scholar, but this following, and this is the crux of the answer, must not become a religion. It must not become a school of thought in the sense that I follow this man in the science of hadith, but I do not benefit from another man in the science of hadith. Why? Because I say, "This is my shaykh." One does not know all the shaykhs, and they may be more knowledgeable than his so-called shaykh. The same applies to fiqh; one does not take fiqh from this man alone.The Shaykh : There may be jurists more knowledgeable than him, whether from the past or among the living. There is no difference in our view. Just as it is not permissible for a Muslim to follow a specific imam in fiqh, it is not permissible to follow an imam in hadith. However, as Imam al-Shafi'i said regarding qiyas (analogical reasoning), "Qiyas is a necessity," and I say that following a scholar is a necessity. But if it becomes clear to him, whether in fiqh or in hadith, that his shaykh made a mistake in a specific fiqh issue, evidenced by the fact thatThe Shaykh : another scholar presented evidence that refutes the opinion, then at that point it is not permissible for him to cling to his shaykh's opinion. Otherwise, he will suffer what befell the Jews and the Christians, about whom Allah said: We say the same thing about hadith that we say about fiqh. Imagine a person in a village where there is no one else but one shaykh, and he has no one else. What can he do? This shaykh is better than him, so he asks him. Perhaps he knows nothing of hadith, but he is forced to ask him about hadith. That shaykh remains, along with his religion and his piety, if he fears Allah, saying, "By Allah, I have no knowledge of hadith." If he is a student who knows a few fiqh issues, he answers according to what he has read, which is better than this ignorant person issuing a fatwa for himself. So, if we assume that in that village there is a scholar of hadith and no one else, he must follow him. But if Allah brings him together with another scholar of hadith and it becomes clear to him that this one is more knowledgeable than the other, he should not continue to cling to the first one. If he continues to cling to the first one in some of his opinions where his mistake has not become clear, that is his obligation. But in matters where his mistake has become clear, it is not permissible for him to cling to it. There is no difference between fiqh and hadith in that following a scholar is obligatory out of necessity, but it is not permissible to make following a religion, to worship by it, and not to deviate from it by a hair's breadth.

The questioner : If you please, our Shaykh...

The Shaykh : Ah

The questioner : For example, it may be that thisThe Shaykh : I mean, from the early scholars, and I may have collected similar works and not weakened... For example, he brought a sahih (valid) hadith, and I acted upon it, and a weak hadith, and I trusted it, and I built my understanding upon it based on his fame and his excellence in hadith and his explanations. So from this perspective, we proceed.

The Shaykh : Okay, did the clarification of his mistake come to you?

The questioner : It may be that he made a mistake.

The Shaykh : That is not the answer. It may be permissible. Did the clarification of his mistake come to you? It is one of two things: either the answer came, or it did not come.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah guide you, I am speaking words that do not accept refutation. Either the clarification that he made a mistake came, or it did not come. Is there a third case for you?

The questioner : No, the clarification came.

The Shaykh : Then do not say "may be" or "perhaps." If the clarification that it is a mistake came, the answer has already been given that it is not permissible to follow him. And if the clarification that he made a mistake did not come, then you must follow him until the mistake becomes clear to you. I mean, your question, in the end, took the answer in advance.

The questioner : Is it permissible for a Muslim to take something from Imam al-Shafi'i... I am unable to judge this issue...

The Shaykh : The answer has already been given. Of course, it needs some clarification.

The questioner : ... Question

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : The brother's questionThe questioner : Because the voice is not audible.

The Shaykh : His question is that a man, for example, from the general public, whose school of jurisprudence may be Hanafi or Shafi'i, and he found this disagreement, and he is not qualified to prefer one opinion over the other. Is it permissible, if he is Shafi'i, to take from the Hanafi, or vice versa? Is that your question?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Ah, I say that the answer to a question like this has already been given, but it is necessary to clarify something new. First, what the Muslims have been afflicted with is taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence)... meaning that a society like this usually has Hanafis and Shafi'is, and there may be some Malikis and Hanbalis, but there are no Wahhabis in the world. And this, allow me to say, requires research. If you wish the answer to it, memorize this phrase: three or four schools of jurisprudence, and people gather, each having his own school. This is not of Islam in any way, because in the time of the Companions, after the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), there were four imams. Who are these four imams? They are the ones we call the Four Caliphs, and they are the Rightly Guided Caliphs. And they were, without doubt, the most knowledgeable of all people after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and the Companions were in the thousands, and after them the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions), who met the Companions and some of them met these four Caliphs. There were no people like now who say, "We are Bakris," or people opposite them who say, "We are Ummaris," or people who say, "We are Uthmanis," or people who say, "We are Ali's followers." How did these people, the thousands of them, live without a specific school? We want to live like that. Perhaps the mind of some people is too narrow to grasp this historical fact, which is beyond dispute, that there were no Bakris, Ummaris, Uthmanis, or Ali's followers. So how did these people worship Allah the Exalted? On the basis of . A man would have a case arise, and if Abu Bakr was available to him, he would ask him; if it was not available to him and 'Umar was available, he would ask him; if none of the Rightly Guided Caliphs was available, and Ibn Mas'ud or Ibn 'Umar or Abu Hurayrah was available, he would ask him, and so on. That is, he asks the people of knowledge, because this is how our Lord commanded: . He did not say, "Ask Abu Bakr, 'Umar, Uthman, and Ali," and so on. History must repeat itself. So the continuation of the Muslims after the time of the three centuries, where every sect has an imam, as we said, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, this is not permissible for the Muslims to remain like this. So they must return to their original way. How the Salaf (the earliest generations) were with the Companions, so the Khalaf (the later generations) must be with the scholars. If you know this fact, you will be at peace. If you are a Shafi'i, be at peace from saying, "I am a Shafi'i," or if you are a Hanafi, be at peace from saying, "I am a Hanafi," and so on, until you are at peace from the unlegislated affiliation. Then you will find yourself driven to act upon the previous verse, . You ask the scholar you trust, and if that scholar is not available to you, another one is available to you, and so on. That is, history must repeat itself. We must now repeat the history of the first Salaf. We do not cling to the school of a specific person, because the Companions and the Tabi'un did not cling to the school of a specific imam. Rather, whichever scholar was available to him, he would ask him, and he would worship Allah with that, and his conscience would be clear before Allah, whether he was right or wrong. This is the answer to your question. So you are now, as is the reality, a Shafi'i, by Allah. I cannot strip people of what they have lived with for many years, because this is an inheritance they inherited from their fathers and grandfathers. But how does this stripping happen? It happens through correct awareness, alerting people, and returning them to the original source. For example, I cannot, if you are a Shafi'i or a Hanafi or otherwise, strip you of being a Hanafi and make you . This is not possible. So I will assume two hypotheses. You are, for example, a Shafi'i, and the school you have lived with was either through specific study with a Shafi'i scholar, or you heard, "I am a Shafi'i." And I am forced to touch my wife or my client or something similar, and I am in a state of wudu' (the ablution for prayer). Does my wudu' break or not? This is whether you are a Shafi'i or, for example, a Hanafi. You performed wudu' and blood came out of you. You also heard from a scholar of a school that says, "The emergence of blood breaks the wudu', even if it is a little." So if we return to the first hypothesis, that you are a Shafi'i in school, is it permissible to clarify your question? Yes, and while you are a Shafi'i in school, you may take the school of Abu Hanifah in this issue where you are dealing with touching women while you are in a state of wudu', so that you may free yourself from this problem. This is every time you caress your wife or play with her, and so on, or a client comes and gives you expenses. This is if you did not intend to touch her, and so on. Yes, does your wudu' break or not? You will find yourself leaning toward the school of where? The Hanafi. The second image is that you are a Hanafi, you are a worker, and so on, exposed to what? You get injured. You find yourself leaning or at least wondering: Is it not permissible for me to take the opinion of Imam al-Shafi'i, who says that blood does not break the wudu', even if it were a flood? The answer now, this is your question, the answer is: it is permissible and it is not permissible. If you are living as a Hanafi, why do you peel off in this issue? Because that one pleased you more for yourself. And if you are living as a Shafi'i, why did you leave the issue of your imam in this matter and take the second imam because he pleased you more? So in this way, your school becomes your desire. The school has ease and it has strictness. The one who says, "Perform wudu' from touching a woman," has strictness. For whom? For the one who says, "Do not perform wudu', even if you kissed her." Do not perform wudu', and the opposite is exactly the opposite. So in this image, the religion becomes desire. Does the religion come like this? No, the religion came

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : except for one thing -they laugh- the point is that the religion has become desire. So this is not permissible. I have therefore given you the answer in two images. The last image, which addresses the reality of people, where this one is a Hanafi and this one is a Shafi'i, and so on. It is not permissible for them to do this act, because the scholars themselves say that this stems from talfiq (mixing), mixing between two schools. Why? To follow dispensations. This is the last answer. And the first answer is: do not tie yourself to a Shafi'i or a Hanafi, and so on, but tie yourself to the Quranic school. What is it? . So in this image, some of our brothers are living it. They applied this verse and do not commit to one of the schools as the masses of people do today, because they understood that the Shari'ah of Allah did not burden His servants with clinging to an imam from the imams of the Muslims. If this had been a law, the first ones would have clung to Abu Bakr, 'Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Four against what? Four. Who is better? Without doubt, the Rightly Guided Caliphs are better. So if they were not imams for those after them, and for those who are more knowledgeable than them, then a fortiori, others who are below them should not be made imams to be followed in place of the other imams. Rather, . What is the difference between the two methodologies and the two ways? The difference is that if we assume you truly are convinced by this Quranic methodology, , then it is invalid for us to say, "I am a Hanafi, I am a Shafi'i." I, people, want you to guide me to the Shari'ah of Allah, the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). You performed wudu' and blood came out of you. You went to this scholar who is not just a scholar, but a scholar by the Book and the Sunnah. You said to him, "I performed wudu' and blood came out of me." If he gives you a fatwa that your wudu' does not break, and you are confident in his knowledge, especially if he supports his fatwa with a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and you take his saying, then you are the one who applied the noble verse. Similarly, when another case falls upon you, let us assume it is the opposite of this one. You were invited to a feast one day. Of course, it is not like our feasts today. Our meat was lamb, but you were invited to meat of what? Camel meat? And you were with us in the opinion that says, "Whoever eats camel meat, let him perform wudu'." You asked one of the people of knowledge, truly: "Is it correct, O Shaykh, that if a person eats camel meat, he must perform wudu'?" He says to you, "Yes, he must perform wudu'." Here, you do not return to your old school following desire. By Allah, there is strictness in it. Just because I do not eat camel meat, I must perform wudu'? You must follow this man, because when he gave you a fatwa that the emergence of blood does not break the wudu', you followed him. When he gave you a fatwa that camel meat does not break the wudu', you do not follow him. We return to the same problem, which is following desire. So if the Muslim frees himself from following desire, and follows the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), he is not just a scholar, but he asks the people of knowledge. If they give him a fatwa based on these two sources, the Book and the Sunnah, then heThe questioner : He performed his obligatory duty, and the mufti performed his obligatory duty; if he made a mistake, he does not bear the burden of that mistake.The questioner : Nor does he bear the burden of his mistake, provided he is sincere in issuing fatwas, meaning he fears the Lord of the Worlds and issued the ruling without following his desires. Because the truth is that desire sometimes takes over.The questioner : Sometimes it takes over even the authorities. In some of the books of the later scholars, there is explicit text, unfortunately, in some of the schools of jurisprudence followed today. It says: "When we are asked and a fatwa is requested, our fatwa will be according to the dirham and dinar given to us. If what is given pleases us, we issue a ruling based on the dispensation (rukhsah). If what is given does not please us, we issue a ruling based on the default ruling ('azimah). Do you understand how it is? Here, religion has become a matter of desire, even among those who claim to be people of knowledge. Therefore, these people and those people must fear Allah in their questions and answers. And when they proceed in this manner, the responsible party andThe questioner : both of them are on the guidance of Allah, even if there is a mistake. So the mistake here is forgiven, based on his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: The bottom line of this speech is that the Muslims must return, all of them, the entire community, to what the early Muslims were upon. There are no schools of jurisprudence; rather, the school is: Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said. Then you will find the scholars who issue fatwas for you saying: Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said. But now, it is very, very rare for the questioner to be issued a fatwa based on "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said." They ask you: "What is your school?" "Your school is Shafi'i, you touched your wife, your ablution is invalidated." If you say to him, "I am Hanafi," he says to you, "Hanafi, your ablution is valid, you do not have to repeat it. Ah, there are two opinions on the issue." There are no two opinions on an issue in Islam. Some of those affiliated with the people of knowledge say there are two opinions on the issue. And this is a joke we are telling you from the Levant and from Syria. And with that, we conclude the session, which some people call dry, all knowledge, no laughter, no giggling, and so on. We are going to end it with a joke. They claim that a certain mufti was destined to leave his country, either for a need or for 'Umrah or any travel. So he left the place of issuing fatwas and said to his father: "Succeed me after I am gone." His father was a Druze, and his son was a learned mufti. The father said to him: "My son, how can I succeed you after you? I am an ignorant man." He said to him: "I will give you a method. You can manage things on your own until I return." He said to him: "Please." He said to him: "Whenever a questioner comes to you and asks you a question, tell him: 'There are two opinions on the issue.' Do not decide on the matter. 'There are two opinions on the issue,' for example. The examples that preceded: a man came and said to you: 'O honorableThe Shaykh : I mean, I touched my wife and I was in a state of ablution. Is it permissible for me to pray without ablution or not?' Tell him: 'There are two opinions on the issue. One opinion says you must perform ablution, and one opinion says you do not have to perform ablution.' A man came to you and said: 'O honorableThe Shaykh : I married without what? Without the permission of the guardian (wali). For example, a woman married without her father's permission. So you issue a fatwa to her and say to her: 'There are two opinions on the issue. One opinion is that this marriage is valid, and one opinion is that this marriage is not valid.' And so on. The ignorant father was reassured by this method that the learned mufti had presented to his ignorant father. He went on his way, and the ignorant father sat in the place of his son the mufti. And the people, as usual, the mufti, whenever a question came, as his son had taught him: 'There are two opinions on the issue.' Pay attention, one of the smart ones there said to the mufti, either directly or through someone he planted, meaning: 'Please, ask for meThe Shaykh : Tell him: 'Is there any doubt about Allah?' O my masterThe Shaykh : I have a question. 'Is there any doubt about Allah?' He said: 'There are two opinions on the issue' — (laughsThe Shaykh : and the students) — We ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to save us from these problems by returning to the Book and the Sunnah.