Is it permissible for a Muslim to say, "I am a Shafi'i" or "I am a Hanbali," for example?

The questioner : Regarding the four schools of jurisprudence, my dear sir.The Shaykh : I mean, it is not obligatory for any one of us to say, "I am a Hanbali" or "I am a Shafi'i" or "I am a Maliki." Should these schools of jurisprudence be dissolved? This is the point I would like to know.

The Shaykh : My brother, ask whatever you wish; I will answer you. But do not accuse us of what is not in us; that is not permissible in the religion of Allah.

The questioner : I did not accuse you, my dear sir.The Shaykh : My dear sir.The Shaykh : You should be more open-minded about this.

The Shaykh : I mean, do you not see that I am open-minded?The Shaykh : And the students are laughing. Is it not strange? Did you just say what you heard from me?

The questioner : This is what I understood.

The Shaykh : How did you understand it? Did the audience sitting there understand it with you and share this understanding with you?

The questioner : By Allah, my dear sir.The Shaykh : This is what I understood. I do not care what the audience sitting there understood, because I cannot ask everyone what they understood. If you can answer the question I asked, answer it. If you do not want to answer, I will withdraw my question and consider that I did not ask it.

The Shaykh : May Allah be pleased with you, may Allah be pleased with you. Before you say this, I said, "Ask whatever you wish." What do you mean? Do you think your question is so serious that I would not answer?

The questioner : Regarding the four schools of jurisprudence, is there a statement in your discourse that a person must not say, "I am a Shafi'i" or "I am a Maliki" or "I am a Hanbali," or the like?

The Shaykh : Yes, he must not say it. Did you get the answer?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, what is your opinion? What do you think?

The questioner : May Allah forgive you, my dear sir.The Shaykh : I do not know anyone in the religion like you. You are people of knowledge, and just now you told me: Why am I asking you?

The Shaykh : Why am I telling you not to ask me?

The questioner : Okay, why can't we say it?

The Shaykh : I am telling you not to ask me? But if I told you to ask me, would it not be permissible for me to ask you?

The questioner : Of course, ask.

The Shaykh : And this is what I am doing with you. I am telling you, just as you are, that it is permissible for you to ask me, and I am telling you to ask me whatever you wish. But does this mean that I am forbidden from asking you?

The questioner : No, it is not forbidden.

The Shaykh : So why do you object to my asking you? After I answered you, I said, "What is your opinion?"

The questioner : My opinion is that what you said is correct, as you are a person of knowledge and I do not know, so I must take what you said because I do not know more than that. But I am asking you a question: why can't we say, for example?

The Shaykh : What do you think, Abu Layla? Do you hear his first statement? So that the doctor knows he is contradicting himself, because he started a lecture saying, "You, people of knowledge, must do such and such," see? And now he comes and says: I, doctor, answered you: it is not obligatory. If you are convinced, then that is it. If you are not convinced, ask so that I can answer you. If you want details? I said, do you want details?

The questioner : By Allah, I would like to. Do you know why? Not following a specific school of jurisprudence. Why do we stop saying, for example, "I am a Hanbali" or "I am a Hanafi" or "I am a Maliki"? If there is a possibility that you can tell me...?

The Shaykh : My brother, do not repeat the words, may Allah bless you. This is not permissible. If I tell you, do you want clarification? Say yes or no?

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : You go back and say, "If you want an answer or not." What does this mean? Are you threatening me? By Allah, it is very strange.The Shaykh : And the students, may Allah have mercy on them, are laughing.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, he wants to be gentle with the question, doctor.

The Shaykh : He has not been gentle at all; on the contrary. Do you know the history of the schools of jurisprudence so that we can save time and cut out some of the talk? Do you know the history of the schools of jurisprudence?

The questioner : A little bit.

The Shaykh : Okay, do you know that in the time of Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali, there were no schools of jurisprudence?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, if someone says to you, "We do not want schools of jurisprudence now, just as things were at the beginning," does it not enter your mind that this statement is correct?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : That is it. What do you want now? It is not obligatory to be a Hanafi, a Shafi'i, a Maliki, a Hanbali, or a follower of a Shi'ite, Zaydi, or similar school. But we today are limited to what is in us. The Muslims who died before these schools of jurisprudence died as Muslims, not as non-Muslims, right? Without a doubt, they died as Muslims. So if we die as they died, not adhering to any of the schools of jurisprudence, are we not Muslims? If we want to say that following a school of jurisprudence is obligatory, where do we derive this obligatory ruling from?

The questioner : I say I do not know the authenticity of the hadith that says .

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, doctor. Are these schools of jurisprudence?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : You forgot that you were asking about the four schools of jurisprudence. Did the Rightly Guided Caliphs have schools of jurisprudence?

The questioner : The meaning was with the Rightly Guided Caliphs; were they only the Rightly Guided Caliphs, or the righteous ones from the people of the Sunnah after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?

The Shaykh : I did not feel that you did anything. I asked you, you did not give me an answer, and you went back to asking me? May Allah forgive you.

The questioner : The Rightly Guided Caliphs did not have schools of jurisprudence.

The Shaykh : Okay, so what is the problem with the hadith? You do not want the hadith? Since you know that before the four schools of jurisprudence, they were Muslims, where do I go with them? May Allah guide you. Do you want to prevent me from talking to the doctor and occupying myself with food? Since it is clear, may Allah bless you, that before the four schools of jurisprudence there were righteous Muslims who died upon guidance and piety, and so on, what is standing in your way that makes you object when we say, "It is not obligatory for Muslims to be on one of the four schools of jurisprudence"? Will they not be content with what contented the righteous predecessors? You will say yes. So what question do you have left? Bring it. In the name of Allah, since the question is no longer coming, I will eat. And the strange thing in the matter is that you are asking this question while you are truly with us in reality and in thought. This is one of the wonders of contradiction, because you want to tell me how? Because I fear that you did not understand me and you will come and build castles on me based on something you did not understand from me. How did I judge that you are truly with us in reality and in thought? It was among your words that you do not adhere to a school of jurisprudence, and I lived on a specific school of jurisprudence, right?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : This is what you meet with us in this. And then you say, "I say you are against us in thought. Why? Because you want to say, 'You say it is not obligatory. How is it not obligatory?' My brother, if it were obligatory, you would be an open sinner because you are on a school of jurisprudence, right or not?

The questioner : Our Shaykh, the problem is in the following form. I first spoke and told you that I know we are on the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, but I do not grasp the Hanbali school of jurisprudence. This is truly the case. You answered that

The Shaykh : ... what does he want to be a scholar of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence?

The questioner : It is not obligatory for a person to be on a specific school of jurisprudence, but at the same time, I know from all the people that this is from such and such a school of jurisprudence, and this is from such and such a school of jurisprudence, and so on. On this basis, I wanted to know if this is correct or if this is wrong?

The Shaykh : Now, doctor, will he be fair to me? I am talking about him, and he is talking about the people.

The questioner : Of course, me and all the people.

The Shaykh : He is talking about him, and he is talking about the people, my dear. You are contradictory. You are not adhering to a school of jurisprudence. Your reality is that you are not adhering to a school of jurisprudence. So either adhering to a school of jurisprudence is obligatory, and you are leaving this obligation; or it is not, as we believe, and you are, praise be to Allah, as you said just now, truly with us in reality and in thought. This means you must adjust your practical position with your intellectual position so that you are not contradictory within yourself.

The questioner : What I wanted to say, my dear sir,The Shaykh : is that if there are those who are adhering to a specific school of jurisprudence from the four schools of jurisprudence, they are part of the scholars of the Muslims. Because it is not possible for the common people, the general public who do not know Islamic jurisprudence, to be adhering to a specific school of jurisprudence. Even if he says, "I follow that school of jurisprudence," he may be following one or two or three things, but he is not following the school of jurisprudence?
Al-Halabi : Making the impurity seven times? Making the impurities seven times?

The questioner : Just that. This thing is different from that. One of them cannot grasp a specific school of jurisprudence.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, excuse me, there is a question that may, if Allah wills, clarify...?

The Shaykh : No offense, I will keep your question. Do I understand from the doctor’s statement that after he rambles on saying that a person cannot be on one single school of jurisprudence, he then asks whether it is obligatory for a person to be on that thing which is impossible? - The student brothers laugh - .
Al-Halabi : I repeat the question, O our Shaykh, no offense, and if it is asked twice, it is better.

The questioner : I am asking ... .

The Shaykh : Excuse me, my brothers here whom we spend a lot of time with know from my speech with them that if they ask me for something, I tell them, "You know, I do not engage in joking, meaning I respond immediately." But it seems you did not know me, so you are over-enthusiastic in asking me if I can answer you, or else I will hold back my question - he laughs.The Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) - My brother, I am ready, in my old age, to sit with you until the break of dawn and you can ask whatever you wish.

The questioner : May Allah preserve you.

The Shaykh : And I will answer you; I have nothing that concerns me after that, whether you are convinced or not; because this conviction is not in my hand. If Allah says to His Prophet: As for guidance, it is in the hand of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); therefore, I am very lenient in this area, and you should not be upset at all about asking question after question. Just make sure your question is refined, so that you feel the necessity of directing the question, so that the answer to it is also necessary. Otherwise, we waste our time and lose the benefit. I also wanted, truly, in the context of religious advice, to remind you of yourself. Your reality is different from what your tongue expresses of what is in your mind, as that poet said:
"Indeed, speech is in the heart, and the tongue was only made a sign for the heart."
The thing we understood from your tongue, I see it contradicts your reality. For example, you recently acknowledged, or you presented and detailed and clarified, that practically it is impossible for a person to adhere to one single school of jurisprudence. If you ask whether it is obligatory to adhere to what is impossible, does that mean you are not stable intellectually and mentally ... ?

The questioner : I am not unstable, my sir. It is possible that I expressed it poorly or was unable to define the question well. I say from reality that no one adheres to a specific school of jurisprudence except the scholars of the Muslims, because the people who are well-versed in these schools are the scholars of the Muslims?

The Shaykh : So do you think now that you expressed it well?

The questioner : I believe this is what I have - he laughs.The questioner - .

The Shaykh : I am going to ruin my mood with food - he laughs.The Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) -

The questioner : ... O my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you, O Doctor. When we spoke with your colleague here, we divided the Islamic world into sections. We placed the scholars in the first section. Now, in your speech, you are placing the first section in the position of the last section, meaning you are placing the scholars in the position of the common people. We said the scholars must exert independent legal reasoning. Now you say they are the ones who adhere to the school because they are well-versed in the school, and they are the ones who know the school? O Professor, O Doctor, their duty is to take from the Book and the Sunnah, so that this one is a Hanafi and that one is a Shafi'i. So why, my brother, do you say that these people’s duty is different from the duty of the common people? When you say, for example, that you lived practically as a Hanbali in some issues, a Shafi'i in others, etc., and perhaps you do not know to distinguish which issue belongs to which school, I tell you, that is so; because that is not your job. But the scholars you are referring to, these must not say what we said about al-Bouti. If al-Bouti can exert independent legal reasoning and take from the Book and the Sunnah, he does not have to say about himself, "I am a Shafi'i," or that one says, "I am a Hanafi." So you are now reversing the issue completely. These scholars who are well-versed in the schools of jurisprudence, these are the mujtahids. These must say, "Allah said so and so, the Messenger of Allah said so and so." They do not say, "I am a Hanafi because my Imam said so and so." This is said only by students of Islamic jurisprudence. As for the common people, as we explained earlier in the saying of Allah the Exalted: The scholars, when asked, answer with "Allah said" and "The Messenger of Allah said." The common people do not say "Allah said" and "The Messenger of Allah said" because they do not understand. But they must ask those who understand. Who are they? The scholars. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) has beautiful poetry saying in defining knowledge, what is knowledge:
“Knowledge is: Allah said, His Messenger said, the Companions said. It is not deception.
"Is knowledge your setting up of ignorance / Between the Messenger and the opinion of the jurist?"
Today we know this thing. When you tell him, "My brother, the Sunnah is so and so, the Messenger said so and so," he says to you, "My brother, my school of jurisprudence is so and so." This is the religion by school of jurisprudence which is not permissible, because it is rejecting the word of Allah and the word of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) merely to contradict the word of Allah and the word of the Messenger of Allah. Why? Because of his school of jurisprudence. If he is a scholar? He says:
"If you do not know, that is a calamity, / And if you do know, the calamity is greater."
If he is a scholar, he says, "No, I do not take this verse, and I do not take this hadith, because it contradicts my school of jurisprudence." This is a calamity without end. And if he is from the students of Islamic jurisprudence, this is also a calamity. They must be taught in the schools, O student of knowledge. It is not a problem that you studied the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence and lived by it for a period of time. But if it becomes clear to you that there is another school of jurisprudence, like the Hanafi, Hanbali, or Maliki, that is more correct than the school of jurisprudence you lived by, do not cling to your school of jurisprudence, because this is not religion. Religion is "Allah said" and "The Messenger of Allah said." Take the second school of jurisprudence in this issue, as long as the evidence is stronger. This is how students of Shari'ah, knowledge of Shari'ah, must be taught. As for the reality today in the Islamic world, as we explained earlier, it is very, very rare. And in any case.