The Obligation to Follow the Evidence, Even If It Contradicts a School of Jurisprudence
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
He also has another question in which he asks: Is it permissible for a person to leave the school of jurisprudence he is following and adopt another school, and when is that permissible, if it is permissible?
Answer: The four schools of jurisprudence are not binding on people. The claim that every student of knowledge or every Muslim must adopt one of them is a defective statement, an incorrect statement. It is obligatory to adhere to what Allah has legislated, through the tongue of His Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). There is no specific person whose opinion must be followed, neither the four imams nor anyone else. It is obligatory to follow the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and proceed according to his methodology in rulings and legislation. It is not permissible for anyone to follow a specific person in this matter. Rather, it is obligatory to follow the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and take what Allah has legislated through him (peace and blessings be upon him), whether it agrees with the four imams or contradicts them. This is the truth.
Thus, it is known that one is not required to be bound to a specific school of jurisprudence. If one takes the opinion of Ahmad in an issue and attributes himself to it, and then sees that he should move to the school of al-Shafi'i in that same issue or in other issues where the evidence supports it, there is no harm. Or the school of Malik, or the school of Abu Hanifah. The important thing is following the evidence. So if, in one of the issues, one is following the school of Ahmad, and then sees that the evidence is with Malik... with al-Shafi'i... with Abu Hanifah... with the Zahiris... or with others from the Salaf, he takes that. The basis is the evidence, just as Allah (Exalted and Majestic is He) said: [Al-Nisa: 59], meaning: in matters of disagreement.
As for matters of consensus, there is no discussion. It is obligatory for the Muslim to take what the scholars have said and not contradict them. But in matters of disagreement and dispute, the student of knowledge looks at the evidence. If the evidence appears to him to be with Ahmad, or with Malik, or with Abu Hanifah, or with others, he takes the evidence and stands firm upon it. There is no following of desires and lusts, no. But following of the evidence. As for a person moving from the school of so-and-so to the school of... for his desire, if this school suits him in an issue, he goes to it, and the other in an issue, he goes to it, following his desire and lust, this is not permissible. This is a manipulation that is not permissible. But if it is by evidence, he looks at the evidence and looks at the words of the scholars and prefers by evidence, not for his desire, but for taking the evidence, then he is rewarded and thanked, and this is what is obligatory upon him. Yes.
Answer: The four schools of jurisprudence are not binding on people. The claim that every student of knowledge or every Muslim must adopt one of them is a defective statement, an incorrect statement. It is obligatory to adhere to what Allah has legislated, through the tongue of His Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). There is no specific person whose opinion must be followed, neither the four imams nor anyone else. It is obligatory to follow the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and proceed according to his methodology in rulings and legislation. It is not permissible for anyone to follow a specific person in this matter. Rather, it is obligatory to follow the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and take what Allah has legislated through him (peace and blessings be upon him), whether it agrees with the four imams or contradicts them. This is the truth.
Thus, it is known that one is not required to be bound to a specific school of jurisprudence. If one takes the opinion of Ahmad in an issue and attributes himself to it, and then sees that he should move to the school of al-Shafi'i in that same issue or in other issues where the evidence supports it, there is no harm. Or the school of Malik, or the school of Abu Hanifah. The important thing is following the evidence. So if, in one of the issues, one is following the school of Ahmad, and then sees that the evidence is with Malik... with al-Shafi'i... with Abu Hanifah... with the Zahiris... or with others from the Salaf, he takes that. The basis is the evidence, just as Allah (Exalted and Majestic is He) said:
And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger
فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِAs for matters of consensus, there is no discussion. It is obligatory for the Muslim to take what the scholars have said and not contradict them. But in matters of disagreement and dispute, the student of knowledge looks at the evidence. If the evidence appears to him to be with Ahmad, or with Malik, or with Abu Hanifah, or with others, he takes the evidence and stands firm upon it. There is no following of desires and lusts, no. But following of the evidence. As for a person moving from the school of so-and-so to the school of... for his desire, if this school suits him in an issue, he goes to it, and the other in an issue, he goes to it, following his desire and lust, this is not permissible. This is a manipulation that is not permissible. But if it is by evidence, he looks at the evidence and looks at the words of the scholars and prefers by evidence, not for his desire, but for taking the evidence, then he is rewarded and thanked, and this is what is obligatory upon him. Yes.
Source
binbaz.org.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.