The Considered Position When the Rulings of the Four Schools of Jurisprudence Differ

Muhammad Salem from Riyadh sent this message saying: Is it obligatory, or I am confused about the matter of the schools of jurisprudence, and people always ask, "Which school are you from?" My question is: Is it obligatory for a Muslim to adhere to one of the schools? I have learned through my reading that there is scholarly disagreement among the schools. For example, in the matter of breastfeeding, I found that the schools of Abu Hanifa and Malik prohibit marriage based on a single suckling, while al-Shafi'i and Ahmad do not prohibit it unless there are five sucklings. So how does a Muslim resolve these disagreements? If a young man wants to marry a girl who was breastfed once by his mother, please advise us, may Allah reward you with good?
Answer: The well-known schools are schools of truth. The schools of al-Shafi'i, Malik, Abu Hanifa, and Ahmad are all schools that call to the truth and adhere to the truth, and they are the schools of the people of the Sunnah and the community. However, a scholar may make some error in some issues, whether from the four imams or others. None of them is infallible. Some of them may not be aware of some of the Sunnah, or a sound hadith may not reach them through a chain that establishes it for them. Therefore, some error occurs in some of the schools. When the schools differ, it is obligatory to refer the matter to the evidence. The scholars of knowledge look at the evidence, then they prefer the position that the evidence requires in issues of disagreement. A student of knowledge who does not reach this level asks the scholars of knowledge, and likewise the layperson asks the scholars of knowledge about what the pure Shari'ah requires. For example, in the case of breastfeeding, if you find someone who was breastfed by your mother once or twice, ask the scholars of knowledge. The correct opinion in this is the one that says five sucklings are required; because the sound hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates this, and the verse regarding the general mention of breastfeeding and the other hadiths that mention breastfeeding generally are understood to be restricted by the specific ruling, based on the established principle in the principles of jurisprudence that the general text is understood to be restricted by the specific text. It is established from the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): It is also established from the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) who said: It was narrated by Muslim in the Sahih and al-Tirmidhi, and this is his wording. This is the ruling in case of dispute. The ruling is the Sunnah. If the Sunnah is sound in something, it is obligatory to take it, and to prefer the opinion that agrees with the Sunnah. In this issue, the one who says five is the one whose opinion agrees with the Sunnah, and the one who says one, two, or three sucklings are sufficient has a weaker opinion. And so it is in issues of disagreement; because Allah said: [Al-Nisa: 59], and He the Exalted said: [Al-Shura: 10].
So when people differ in something, it is obligatory to refer it to the Book and the Sunnah. The scholars of knowledge are those who look into that, and they are those who refer matters to the Book and the Sunnah. When they look at the evidence, it is obligatory to prefer what the evidence supports. The layperson asks, and the limited student of knowledge who has not reached the level of the mujtahids and those who know the grades of the Sunnah asks the scholars of knowledge and seeks among the scholars of knowledge who is closest to knowledge and virtue, and closest to the people of the Sunnah; because this is his obligation and this is his effort. It is not obligatory for a person to adhere to a specific school, but rather he should seek the truth and ask about the truth. So whenever he finds the truth, he takes it, whether it is with Malik or al-Shafi'i or Abu Hanifa or Ahmad, or others from the scholars of knowledge in issues of disagreement. Yes.