Is it obligatory for a Muslim to adopt one of the four schools of jurisprudence, or should he choose the opinion of the majority of scholars?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you. A questioner asks: Is it obligatory for a Muslim to adopt one of the four schools of jurisprudence, or to adopt what the majority of scholars have held?
The Shaykh : Yes. In reality, we see that the layperson should follow the scholars of his country; he should follow the scholars of his country who are known for trustworthiness and knowledge. We cannot say to the layperson, "Follow whatever you wish." If we said that, it would lead to great harm. For example, if a person touched a woman for desire while in a state of ablution, and ate camel meat while in a state of ablution, and then stood to pray, we would tell him: You are praying without ablution. If you followed Imam Ahmad, you ate camel meat, which invalidates ablution. And if you followed the others who said that it does not invalidate, but that touching a woman for desire does invalidate it, then you prayed without ablution. He would say, "I have the choice to follow Imam Ahmad in that touching a woman does not invalidate ablution, and to follow the others in that camel meat does not invalidate ablution." Thus, he would have prayed an invalid prayer according to both opinions. This would be playing with the matter. Therefore, we see that the layperson should follow the scholars of his country if they are known for knowledge and trustworthiness, and he should not look to anyone else. As for the student of knowledge who is able to exercise independent legal reasoning, review the evidence, and examine it, he should follow whom he sees to be closest to the truth. Yes, that is correct.
The Shaykh : Yes. In reality, we see that the layperson should follow the scholars of his country; he should follow the scholars of his country who are known for trustworthiness and knowledge. We cannot say to the layperson, "Follow whatever you wish." If we said that, it would lead to great harm. For example, if a person touched a woman for desire while in a state of ablution, and ate camel meat while in a state of ablution, and then stood to pray, we would tell him: You are praying without ablution. If you followed Imam Ahmad, you ate camel meat, which invalidates ablution. And if you followed the others who said that it does not invalidate, but that touching a woman for desire does invalidate it, then you prayed without ablution. He would say, "I have the choice to follow Imam Ahmad in that touching a woman does not invalidate ablution, and to follow the others in that camel meat does not invalidate ablution." Thus, he would have prayed an invalid prayer according to both opinions. This would be playing with the matter. Therefore, we see that the layperson should follow the scholars of his country if they are known for knowledge and trustworthiness, and he should not look to anyone else. As for the student of knowledge who is able to exercise independent legal reasoning, review the evidence, and examine it, he should follow whom he sees to be closest to the truth. Yes, that is correct.