Matters of scholarly disagreement do not require adherence to a specific school of jurisprudence
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
There are opinions and independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) based on the four schools of jurisprudence. Since the Kingdom operates according to the school of Imam Ahmad, if a scholar qualified to derive rulings (mujtahid) issues a ruling on a particular issue according to one of the other schools, such as the Hanafi school, or another, if he finds it to be the stronger position, is this permissible for him?
Answer:
There is no blame on him for that. The school of Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is not mandated for the people, neither in Riyadh, nor in the Kingdom, nor elsewhere. The school of Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is like the other schools: what is correct in it is to be followed, and what is erroneous in it must be abandoned. The same applies to the schools of al-Shafi'i, Malik, Abu Hanifah, the Zahiris, al-Thawri, Ibn al-Rahawayh, and others. In cases of disagreement, the evidence is what is relied upon.
As for matters of scholarly consensus (ijma'), no one has a say in matters of consensus; it is obligatory to state what the consensus indicates. As for matters in which scholars have disagreed, it is obligatory for the scholar to choose what is supported by evidence, whether it aligns with the school of Ahmad, or the school of Malik, or al-Shafi'i, or Abu Hanifah, or others.
The Intended Meaning: It is about adopting what aligns with the evidence and for which the proof is established. The leaders of the call (da'wah), who are the Hanbalis, namely Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, his group, and his followers, adopted issues that contradict the school of Ahmad when it became apparent to them that the stronger position was that of another.
For example: the exclusion of brothers by a grandfather. The well-known view among the Hanbalis is that they are not excluded by a grandfather, but rather share with him. The correct view is that they are excluded, which is the school of Abu Hanifah and a narration from Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). This is what Shaykh Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him) and a group of his followers ruled, and it is the school of al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him and grant him satisfaction) and a group of the Companions, about fifteen Companions, all of whom stated that brothers are excluded by a grandfather, and that he is the father.
There are other issues in which the leaders of the call, and other Hanbalis, adopted the school of Malik, or the school of Abu Hanifah, or the school of al-Shafi'i, or others, due to the clarity of the evidence.
The point is: in matters of disagreement, a specific school is not mandated. Rather, it is obligatory to adopt what is supported by evidence, regardless of whether it aligns with the school of so-and-so or so-and-so.
There are opinions and independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) based on the four schools of jurisprudence. Since the Kingdom operates according to the school of Imam Ahmad, if a scholar qualified to derive rulings (mujtahid) issues a ruling on a particular issue according to one of the other schools, such as the Hanafi school, or another, if he finds it to be the stronger position, is this permissible for him?
Answer:
There is no blame on him for that. The school of Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is not mandated for the people, neither in Riyadh, nor in the Kingdom, nor elsewhere. The school of Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is like the other schools: what is correct in it is to be followed, and what is erroneous in it must be abandoned. The same applies to the schools of al-Shafi'i, Malik, Abu Hanifah, the Zahiris, al-Thawri, Ibn al-Rahawayh, and others. In cases of disagreement, the evidence is what is relied upon.
As for matters of scholarly consensus (ijma'), no one has a say in matters of consensus; it is obligatory to state what the consensus indicates. As for matters in which scholars have disagreed, it is obligatory for the scholar to choose what is supported by evidence, whether it aligns with the school of Ahmad, or the school of Malik, or al-Shafi'i, or Abu Hanifah, or others.
The Intended Meaning: It is about adopting what aligns with the evidence and for which the proof is established. The leaders of the call (da'wah), who are the Hanbalis, namely Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, his group, and his followers, adopted issues that contradict the school of Ahmad when it became apparent to them that the stronger position was that of another.
For example: the exclusion of brothers by a grandfather. The well-known view among the Hanbalis is that they are not excluded by a grandfather, but rather share with him. The correct view is that they are excluded, which is the school of Abu Hanifah and a narration from Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). This is what Shaykh Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him) and a group of his followers ruled, and it is the school of al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him and grant him satisfaction) and a group of the Companions, about fifteen Companions, all of whom stated that brothers are excluded by a grandfather, and that he is the father.
There are other issues in which the leaders of the call, and other Hanbalis, adopted the school of Malik, or the school of Abu Hanifah, or the school of al-Shafi'i, or others, due to the clarity of the evidence.
The point is: in matters of disagreement, a specific school is not mandated. Rather, it is obligatory to adopt what is supported by evidence, regardless of whether it aligns with the school of so-and-so or so-and-so.
Source
binbaz.org.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.