Following the mu'tamad in the Shafi'i Madhhab

[ImamGhazzaali]

Assalamu 'alaykum,

by Ustadh Abu Yahya.

'Bismillah

It was stated explicitly by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (rahmatu'Allahi alayh) that it is not obligatory. In fact, in al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya he mentions that it is not considered obligatory to stick to a single Madhhab, and he even seems to have preferred the view that it is permissible to go outside of the four Madhaheb and to follow the opinion of any Mujtahid Imam, including the Sahaba. He also mentions that this is the favored view of Ibn as-Subki. Ibn Hajar explicitly states: هو حسن بالغ وبه يعلم جواز تقليدهم في مسائل إذ لا يجب التمذهب بمذهب معين خلافا للحنفية

However, this should be restricted to the Talib, who chooses after research, while the general masses should simply ask a reliable Alim for fatwa, which he may follow, whether it is the Mu'tamad or not. In fact, there is a great deal of discussion and differences regarding the rules of seeking fatwa... some super strict (first fatwa received is binding), others extremely lenient (seeking out the easiest option). At the end of the day it is an individual obligation to have Taqwa and it boils down to asking our hearts, in the light of this very same Taqwa, insha'Allah.

'...The layman may follow the Fatwa although it is not Mu'tamad. But in an attempt to stop chaos from erupting, the Ulama have often highly encouraged that the general Fatwa is given upon the Mu'tamad, as these opinions have been checked and verified throughout the centuries, and have been ensured to be solid and grounded in sound knowledge, without the shadow of a doubt. In theory, this makes "fatwa-shopping" harder. And while it has been the preferred opinion by some Usulis, Tattabu' Ar-Rukhas (seeking out dispensations) is NOT permissible in the view of Ibn Hajar.

For the student, it is only natural that one studies a Madhhab, which means it is also only natural that one follows it in ones practice. One only leaves al-Mu'tamad, or the school altogether, after research and conviction, or due to a serious need.

The Shafi'i Madhhab is a Hadithi Madhhab. Consider the following from Shah Waliullah:

قال ابن الصلاح من وجد من الشافعية حديثا يخالف مذهبه نظر إن كملت له آلة الاجتهاد مطلقا أو في ذلك الباب أو المسألة كان له الاستقلال بالعمل وان لم يكمل وشق مخالفة الحديث بعد أن يبحث فلم يجد للمخالفة جوابا شافيا عنه فله العمل به إن كان عمل به إمام مستقل غير الشافعي ويكون هذا عذرا له في ترك مذهب إمامه ههنا وحسنه النووي وقرره

“Ibn as-Salah said: ‘If a Shafi’I finds a Hadeeth that contradicts his Madhhab, it would be seen’. If he has (acquired) the tools for Ijtihad, either fully, or in a particular chapter of Fiqh alone, or in a single issue alone, he has the choice of following whatever he believes to be correct. If he lacks the tools for Ijtihad, and he finds it hard to act contrary to the Hadith after researching it without finding a reasonable answer to the Hadith, he is allowed to act upon the Hadeeth as long as another Imam apart from ash-Shafi’I has acted upon that particular Hadith. This would be an excuse for the layman to leave the Madhhab of his Imam. An-Nawawi and others liked this.”

Wa Allahu a'lam'

[Muzzammil Husayn]

There are two different issues here: One, whether it is necessary for a layman to follow and ascribe himself to a specific madhhab; and second, is it permissible for one ascribed to the Shafi‘i madhhab to follow a weak opinion besides the stronger position of the madhhab in normal circumstances?

Regarding the first issue, Imam al-Nawawi mentions there are two opinions on this in his Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, and he seems to prefer the view of Abu l-Hasan Ilkiya that it is necessary for a layman to adopt a madhhab, because otherwise “it will lead to collecting the concessions of all the madhhabs, following one’s desires, and choosing between permission and prohibition, obligation and permissibility, and that will lead to relinquishing the burden of responsibility.” He says this is different from the first period of Islam when laypeople would ask any mufti they pleased, “because the madhhabs incorporating laws related to all outcomes were not refined.” (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 1:93)

In other words, there was little room in the early period of Islam to collect concessions, follow desires etc. because the madhhabs of the scholars were not known, and when the questioner (mustafti) asked a mufti, that would probably have been the first time he ever came across that answer. However, once the madhhabs were codified and the opinions of the different madhhabs became well-known, the option of taking fatwa from any mufti of any madhhab would very easily lead to chasing concessions and following desires. And since the vast majority of scholars agree chasing concessions (tattabu' al-rukhas), following desires (ittiba' al-hawa), and talfiq (mixing opinions of different madhahib on a single issue in a way that makes it invalid according to all of them) are prohibited, it follows that a layperson must adopt a madhhab. Thus the obligation of following a single madhhab is not an obligation in itself but a regulatory (intizami) principle. (See Mufti Taqi Usmani’ Usul al-Ifta, Chapter: Mas’alah al-Taqlid wa l-Tamadhhub) Imam al-Nawawi says, the most correct opinion according to al-Qaffal is that a layperson does have a madhhab and he cannot go against it. (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 1:93)

Al-Juwayni said: “The verifiers have agreed that laypeople may not adhere to the madhhabs of individual Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them), rather they must follow the madhhabs of the [four] Imams who examined and deliberated, arranged chapters, and described outcomes of juristic rulings, interspersed with discussion of the madhhabs of the earlier ones.” (Al-Burhan fi Usul al-Fiqh, p 1146) Al-Nawawi says the same: “He may not adopt the madhhab of any of the imams of the Sahabah and others from the early ones, although they were more learned and higher in rank than those who came after them because they did not devote themselves entirely to compiling knowledge and outlining its principles and its branches, so none of them had a refined, codified and approved madhhab, and only those who came after them from the Imams who were affiliated to the madhhabs of the Sahabah and the Tabi‘in took up this task...” (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 1:93)

Thus, although there are two opinions as al-Nawawi mentions [one that a layperson can follow different muftis of different madhhabs as he pleases as long as he does not chase concessions, do talfiq or follow desires - which was favoured by al-Haythami (يَجُوزُ لِلْعَامِّيِّ أَيْ من لم يَتَأَهَّلْ لِمَعْرِفَةِ الْأَدِلَّةِ على قَوَانِينِهَا تَقْلِيدُ من شَاءَ من الشَّافِعِيِّ وَمَالِكٍ وَغَيْرِهِمَا ما لم يَتَتَبَّعْ الرُّخَصَ أو يَحْصُلْ تَلْفِيقٌ لَا يقول بِهِ أَحَدٌ مِمَّنْ قَلَّدَهُمْ); second, that he must adhere to a specific madhhab], it is clear the second is the safest and most sensible view.

However, this is a different issue to a Shafi‘i following a weak opinion in the madhhab or outside the madhhab in normal circumstances (i.e. without dururah, or other reasons), as this is by agreement (ijma') not permissible. Ibn al-Salah said: “It is not permissible for one associated to the madhhab of al-Shafi'i in an issue with two opinions or two variants to choose and act or issue fatwa on whichever of them he wishes...” Al-Nawawi said the same in Sharh al-Muhadhdhab. And Ibn al-Salah further said that a person who “acts on whatever he wishes from the opinions or variants without deliberating on which is the rajih, and does not restrict himself to it [i.e. the rajih], he is ignorant, and has violated ijma‘.” (Adab al-Mufti wa l-Mustafti p 63) Al-Haytami also quotes this ijma from Ibn al-Salah saying that a mufti of the Shafi‘i madhhab cannot issue fatwa on a weak opinion.

The Shafi'i Madhhab is a Hadithi Madhhab. Consider the following from Shah Waliullah:

قال ابن الصلاح من وجد من الشافعية حديثا يخالف مذهبه نظر إن كملت له آلة الاجتهاد مطلقا أو في ذلك الباب أو المسألة كان له الاستقلال بالعمل وان لم يكمل وشق مخالفة الحديث بعد أن يبحث فلم يجد للمخالفة جوابا شافيا عنه فله العمل به إن كان عمل به إمام مستقل غير الشافعي ويكون هذا عذرا له في ترك مذهب إمامه ههنا وحسنه النووي وقرره

“Ibn as-Salah said: ‘If a Shafi’I finds a Hadeeth that contradicts his Madhhab, it would be seen’. If he has (acquired) the tools for Ijtihad, either fully, or in a particular chapter of Fiqh alone, or in a single issue alone, he has the choice of following whatever he believes to be correct. If he lacks the tools for Ijtihad, and he finds it hard to act contrary to the Hadith after researching it without finding a reasonable answer to the Hadith, he is allowed to act upon the Hadeeth as long as another Imam apart from ash-Shafi’I has acted upon that particular Hadith. This would be an excuse for the layman to leave the Madhhab of his Imam. An-Nawawi and others liked this.”

It is not "Al-Nawawi and others..." but "al-Nawawi approved of it and confirmed it" (qarrarahu). This quote can be found in al-Nawawi's Sharh al-Muhadhdhab. It is discussing situations where it is permissible to go outside the stronger position of the madhhab. In normal circumstances, however, there is consensus that one must follow the stronger opinion of the madhhab.

[Jadeed]

A brother from another forum posted this in regards to Imam Nawawi's view on the matter, which appears to be in line with Ibn Hajar's.

وهل يجوز للعامِّي أن يتخيَّرَ ويقلِّدَ أيَّ مذهبٍ شاءَ، نُظر إن كان منتسبًا إلى مذهبٍ، بُني على وجهين، حَكاهما القاضي حُسين في أن العامِّيَّ هل له مذهبٌ أم لا ؟
أحدهما: لا، لأن المذهبَ لعارفِ الادلة، فعلى هذا له أن يستفتيَ مَن شاءَ، وأصحُّهما عند القفّال له مذهبٌ، فلا تجوز مخالفتُه. وإن لم يكنْ منتسبًا، بُني على وجهين، حَكاهما ابنُ بَرْهانٍ بفتْح الباء مِن أصحابنا في أن العاميَّ هل يلزَمه التقيُّد بمذهبٍ معيَّنٍ ؟ أحدهما: لا، فعلى هذا هل له أن يقلِّدَ من شاءَ أم يبحَثَ عن أسَدِّ المذاهب، فيقلِّدَ أهلَه وجهان، كالبحْث عن الأعلم.
والثاني وبه قطَع أبو الحسن إلْكِيا: يلزَمه. وهو جارٍ في كلِّ مَن لَم يبلُغْ رُتبةَ الاجتهاد مِن الفقهاء وأصحابِ سائرِ العلوم، لئلا يَتلقَّطَ رُخَصَ المذاهب بخلاف العصْر الاوَّل، ولم تكنْ مذاهب مدوَّنة، فيَتلقَّطَ رُخَصَها. فعلى هذا يلزَمه أن يختارَ مذهبًا يقلِّده في كلِّ شئ، وليس له التمَذهُب بمجرَّد التشهِّي، ولا بما وجدَ عليه أباه، هذا كلامُ الأَصحاب. والذي يقتضِيه الدليلُ أنه لا يلزَمه التمَذهُبُ بمذهبٍ، بل يَستفتي مَن شاءَ، أو مَن اتَّفقَ، لكنْ من غير تلقُّط للرُّخَص. ولعل من منَعه لم يثِقْ بعدم تلقُّطه. وإذا استَفتى وأَفتاه المفتي، فقال أبو المظفَّر السَّمْعاني: لا يلزَمه العملُ به إلا بإلزامه، قال: ويجوز أن يقال: يلزَمه إذا أخَذ في العمل به، وقيل: يلزَمه إذا وقَع في نفسه صحتُه، قال: وهذا أولى الأوْجُه

Muhyid-Din an-Nawawi,
"Rawdatut-Talibin", 8/101
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Daru Alamil-Kutub, 1423/2003

[SASLAMS]

Assalamu 'alaykum,

by Ustadh Abu Yahya.

'Bismillah

It was stated explicitly by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (rahmatu'Allahi alayh) that it is not obligatory. In fact, in al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya he mentions that it is not considered obligatory to stick to a single Madhhab, and he even seems to have preferred the view that it is permissible to go outside of the four Madhaheb and to follow the opinion of any Mujtahid Imam, including the Sahaba. He also mentions that this is the favored view of Ibn as-Subki. Ibn Hajar explicitly states: هو حسن بالغ وبه يعلم جواز تقليدهم في مسائل إذ لا يجب التمذهب بمذهب معين خلافا للحنفية

However, this should be restricted to the Talib, who chooses after research, while the general masses should simply ask a reliable Alim for fatwa, which he may follow, whether it is the Mu'tamad or not. In fact, there is a great deal of discussion and differences regarding the rules of seeking fatwa... some super strict (first fatwa received is binding), others extremely lenient (seeking out the easiest option). At the end of the day it is an individual obligation to have Taqwa and it boils down to asking our hearts, in the light of this very same Taqwa, insha'Allah.

'...The layman may follow the Fatwa although it is not Mu'tamad. But in an attempt to stop chaos from erupting, the Ulama have often highly encouraged that the general Fatwa is given upon the Mu'tamad, as these opinions have been checked and verified throughout the centuries, and have been ensured to be solid and grounded in sound knowledge, without the shadow of a doubt. In theory, this makes "fatwa-shopping" harder. And while it has been the preferred opinion by some Usulis, Tattabu' Ar-Rukhas (seeking out dispensations) is NOT permissible in the view of Ibn Hajar.

For the student, it is only natural that one studies a Madhhab, which means it is also only natural that one follows it in ones practice. One only leaves al-Mu'tamad, or the school altogether, after research and conviction, or due to a serious need.

The Shafi'i Madhhab is a Hadithi Madhhab. Consider the following from Shah Waliullah:

قال ابن الصلاح من وجد من الشافعية حديثا يخالف مذهبه نظر إن كملت له آلة الاجتهاد مطلقا أو في ذلك الباب أو المسألة كان له الاستقلال بالعمل وان لم يكمل وشق مخالفة الحديث بعد أن يبحث فلم يجد للمخالفة جوابا شافيا عنه فله العمل به إن كان عمل به إمام مستقل غير الشافعي ويكون هذا عذرا له في ترك مذهب إمامه ههنا وحسنه النووي وقرره

“Ibn as-Salah said: ‘If a Shafi’I finds a Hadeeth that contradicts his Madhhab, it would be seen’. If he has (acquired) the tools for Ijtihad, either fully, or in a particular chapter of Fiqh alone, or in a single issue alone, he has the choice of following whatever he believes to be correct. If he lacks the tools for Ijtihad, and he finds it hard to act contrary to the Hadith after researching it without finding a reasonable answer to the Hadith, he is allowed to act upon the Hadeeth as long as another Imam apart from ash-Shafi’I has acted upon that particular Hadith. This would be an excuse for the layman to leave the Madhhab of his Imam. An-Nawawi and others liked this.”

Wa Allahu a'lam'

this would be an intresting thread. it the last bit where it mentions apart from another Imaam apart from Ash Shafi' RA. does Sha Waliyullah RA metion that the Imaam should be from the shafi' madhab. this is similar to qawl ikhtiyaar where if there is an opinion from within the shafi' madhab which is not mu'tamad or could even be weak but one of the Imaams from the other 3 madhahib agree, then this view would be a strong view from the madhab & one can practice without even questioning.

[ImamGhazzaali]

''Bismillah

1- As Ibn Hajar states clearly: It is not obligatory to stick to a single Madhhab (let alone the mu'tamad).
2- One may not carry out an act in a way that contradicts the Ijma.
3- One may not seek out dispensations (tattabu’ ar-rukhas) following ones desires.

What is then to stop people from following desires? Good old Taqwa, plain and simple.

How can the layman have a fixed Madhhab when the illiterate up until recently, the majority was illiterate, and that still happens to be the case in many places? So in reality, the Madhhab is for the student of knowledge and the scholar, and this appears to be what the majority have favored. As for the layman, he asks “Ahl adh-Dhikr”, and asking a trustworthy scholar from any Madhhab he likes fulfills this, and therefore it was said that his Madhhab [in a particular question] is that of the scholar he asks.

If one, on a personal level, wants to stick to a single Imam or Madhhab, this is permissible; although some did not even allow this if done without research and estimation, and Shah Waliullah mentioned that sticking to all the opinions of a single Imam goes against the Ijma of the Ummah, from the first to the last. Whatever the case may be (and I personally believe that it is permissible), obligating oneself to only follow one Imam, or only the Mu’tamad, is not binding according to the majority, and obligating Taqlid Shakhsi on everyone is a rather recent exaggeration. There have been differences of opinion and understanding, especially in the finer details, but the three points of Al-Haytami above are balanced, seem to represent the majority, and does not go to either of the two “extremes”.

With that said, laymen are at different stages of learning and comprehension, and like the Ulama of the Madhhab, I am not calling for a disbandment of the Madhaheb, or “re-inventing the wheel”. The complete non-student layman is free to ask any trustworthy and pious scholar, regardless of Madhhab. As for the student of knowledge, he should move gradually towards estimation, and eventually tarjih, while upholding the famous and well-established opinions of the Madhhab he studies.

I am well-aware that some may differ with these conclusions, and they are free to do so.

Wa Allahu a’lam''

In fact, Ibn al-Subki says quite clearly that he prefers the permissibility of doing taqlid of the fatawa of the Sahaba and the rest of the Mujtahidin, and that it is not limited to the Four Imams. And Ibn Hajar likes this opinion. And if I am allowed to go "outside of the Madhhab" here, Shah Waliullah, makes this a point when he says in "Al-Insaf fi bayan asbab al-ikhtilaf" what basically means: "What made these more worthy of being followed than Umar ibn Al-Khattab, or Ali ibn Abi Talib, or Ibn Mas'ud, or Ibn Abbas, or A'isha Umm al-Mu'minin."

But again Fatwa according to the school must be what is representative of the school.

The settled position among the scholars and specialists of Usul have stated that Taqlid shakhsi is not wajib. It is actually explained by them it is not binding, whether Asnawi, Ibn al-Hajib, al-Muti'ee, Ibn al-Hammam and most scholars today; Shaykh Bin Bayya and Zuhayli to name two.

Ibn Hajar al-Haythami's view on this is what is given by almost all Shafi scholars. Juwayni was a great scholar of Usul, his point is about the practicality of following a madhab without knowing it's conditions and parameters. Not actually in principle but practical. And that should be considered. Secondly, if one wishes to learn and study obviously this would only be possible through madhahib.

Giving edict is different to generally embracing a view. This is the distinction. Ibn al-Subki explains further that actually one can even act on the nass. So it is not as straight forward as deobandi clerics wish to make it. They are of course welcome to adhere to their view, but insisting on it is problematic to put it mildly.

With Allah is all success.

[StudentOfTheDeen]

Imam al-Nawawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “Its reason is that if it were permissible to adhere to any madhhab one wished, it would lead to collecting the concessions of the madhhabs, in accordance with one’s desires, and opting between legalisation and illegalisation, obligation and permission, and this will lead to relinquishing the noose of moral responsibility (taklif); as distinguished from the early period, because [at that time] there were no refined madhhabs that encompassed the rulings of [all] outcomes. Based on this, it is necessary for him to make effort in opting for one madhhab he will adhere to specifically.” (al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:55)

[SeekerOfGuidance]

It is quite significant that Imam Nawawi, who is the most reliable and accurate transmitter of the views of the early Mujtahids of his madh-hab, clearly states that the Ashaab (the major early Mujtahideen scholars of the Madhab) ruled on the necessity of adhering to one Madhab, as a regulatory measure to prevent the people from collecting concessions:

"The second [opinion] and Abu al-Hasan Ilkiya was assured of it is it is necessary for him [i.e. the layperson to adhere to a specific madhhab] - and this applies to all who have not reached the level of ijtihad from the jurists and the scholars of the remaining sciences - so that one does not collect the concessions of the madhhabs; as distinguished from the first period, when the madhhabs were not codified, so [it was not possible] to collect their concessions. Based on this, it is necessary for him to select a madhhab he will do taqlid of in everything. He cannot adopt a madhhab based on whim, nor based on what he found his father upon [i.e. but must investigate which madhhab he feels is the most superior]. This is the viewpoint of the Ashaab."

And:

“Its reason is that if it were permissible to adhere to any madhhab one wished, it would lead to collecting the concessions of the madhhabs, in accordance with one’s desires, and opting between legalisation and illegalisation, obligation and permission, and this will lead to relinquishing the noose of moral responsibility (taklif); as distinguished from the early period, because [at that time] there were no refined madhhabs that encompassed the rulings of [all] outcomes. Based on this, it is necessary for him to make effort in opting for one madhhab he will adhere to specifically.” (al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:55)

He also states that the most correct opinion according to al-Qaffal is that a layperson does have a madhhab and he cannot go against it. (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 1:93)

As Imam Nawawi ventures to state quite explicitly, in a manner that indicates an undeniable degree of familiarity with this position, the position of the ashaab seems to consider both the fact that the process of adopting a madhab involves believing that it is the best and all its rulings are correct, and the fact that the avenues available for the non-Mujtahid to collect concessions need to be restricted. Since both reasons are not mutually exclusive, one even being a natural precursor to the other, both reasons could probably be taken for granted whenever the fuqaha rule on the necessity of Taqleed Shakhsi, at the least amongst the Shafi'is, as clarified in the viewpoint of their founding Mujtahids.

In his fatawa, Haythami re-affirms the position of the Ashaab, before going on to mention his own and perhaps Imam Nawawi's preference:

"He [Haythami] was asked: Is it obligatory after the codification of madhhabs to stick to one of them? And can one transfer from what he stuck to? He replied: That which is transmitted in Ziyadat al-Rawdah [by al-Nawawi] from the Ashaab [the major early mujtahideen scholars of the madhhab] is the obligation of that."

Since, according to the hierarchy of his own books, Haythami's Tuhfatul Muhtaj is the most authoritative and takes precedence over his fatawa, perhaps the following unambiguous statement should be taken to be his final stance on this issue:

"And the claim that a layperson has no madhhab is rejected. Rather, taqlid of a recognised madhhab is necessary for him. And that [i.e. a layperson not having a madhhab] was only before the codification and establishment of the madhhabs." (Tuhfatul Muhtaj)

The opinion that they layman should adhere to a specific madh-hab , seems to be re-affirmed as the most correct ruling (asahh) by later scholars such as Taj al-Din al-Subki, in his Jam' al-Jawami', an important Shafi'i Usul work.

The fact that Imam an-Nawawi attributes the view of Taqleed Shaksi to the Ashaab as a whole without qualification, indicates that there was some degree of agreement amongst them. Furthermore, the fact that the early Shafi'i Mujtahids from 200AH to 500AH, whose views constituted the madhab, held such a view on Taqleed Shaksi, corroborates Shah Waliullah's claim that adherence to one Madhab became prevalent after the second century and that it was the obligation at the time. Shah Waliullah concedes to this, despite the fact that he himself appeared to have held varying views regarding Taqleed during his lifetime:

http://www.deoband.org/2012/07/gener...ing-a-madhhab/

Shaykh Wali Allah al-Dihlawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “Know that the people in the first and second centuries were not united on taqlid of one specified madhhab, and after the second century, there appeared amongst them adherence to the madhhabs of specific mujtahids, and those who did not rely on the madhhab of a specific mujtahid became few – and this was the obligation of that time. If you say: How is it that one thing is not obligatory at one time, but obligatory at another time, although the Shari‘ah is one? I say: The original obligation is that there are those in the ummah who are aware of the corollary rulings from their detailed evidences. The people of truth are united on this. And the prelude to an obligation is obligatory. When there are many avenues to that obligation, it is necessary to acquire any avenue from those avenues without particularisation, but when one avenue becomes specified, that one avenue itself becomes obligatory…Based on this, it should be that the result is the obligation of taqlid of a specific imam.” (al-Insaf fi Bayan Asbab al-Ikhtilaf, p. 68, 70)

Since the reasons given by the Ashaab for the necessity of adopting a specific Madhab, transcends a particular Madhab, it'll be useful to further corroborate Shah Walilullah's claim by verifying whether there occurred a similar degree of agreement amongst the early Mutahids of the other Madhabs . Abu Talib al-Makki (d.386) clearly categorises the concept of adhering only to one school with other ‘later developments’ such as books and compilations, indicating such a concept was not even uncommon even during his time:

“Books and compilations are all later developments, as is holding to the statements which people have made, giving legal opinions based on the school of a single individual, holding to his opinion, emulating him in every thing, and conducting jurisprudence according to his school. This was not the way of the people who preceded us in the first and second centuries.” (Qut al-Qulub)

Imam Al-Maziri, who lived in the 5th century, and who is another undeniably trustworthy early authority, also explicitly attributes such a view to his teachers and previous generations as a whole.

Later authorities such as Imam al-Hattab al-Ra'ini al-Maliki (d. 953) also confirmed that the obligation to adopt a madhhab was not an uncommon view:

“Taqlid is to adopt the opinion of another without knowing his evidence, and that which the majority is upon is that it is obligatory for the who does not have the ability of ijtihad to do taqlid of one of the [four] mujtahid Imams.” (Mawahib al-Jalil 1:42)

And Allamah as-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188), in his Lawami', also confirms that this view was “more famous and well-known” in his time.

The fact that the Ashaab of the Shafi'i madhab and other early fuqaha felt that there was a need for Taqleed Shakhsi over a millenium ago, despite the relative piety of their era, further vindicates and emphasizes on the correctness of the ruling of the Deobandi Akaabir in these worst of times, close to the hour, when the dictates of desires are more rampant than ever before. A question that naturally arises from all this is how does a regulatory measure introduced in order to prevent the people of a relatively pious and blessed era from following their desires, by the major Mujtahids of that time who constituted at least one of the major Madhabs, become discarded widely today and even become regarded as extreme by some quarters, in an era when impiety and abject slavery to desires has reached unprecedented levels?

I have met an increasing number of Hanafi scholars who honestly believe that both the Shafi'i opinion on the beard and the Hanbali opinion on masah over thin socks, are the strongest positions. Furthermore, it is only human nature for such scholars to believe that the Nafs played no part in their self-perceived objective judgement. In any case, regardless of the accuracy of their judgement, some would say that they are perfectly entitled to adopt the easiest opinion amongst the Madhabs. However, the soundness of their judgement is irrelevant, when it comes to the laypeople who regard the practice of such scholars as the standard to aspire towards. Knowingly or unknowingly, these scholars legitimise for countless laypeople, their practise of madhab-hopping, or of adopting marjooh and anomalous opinions.

There is an unfathomable difference between the person who accepts that he is committing a sin, and the one who is unrepentant and believes, with a clear conscious, that he is merely following a valid methodology. Since, we have been desensitized to such widespread practices of unregulated madhab-hopping, and adoption of marjooh opinions, a hypothetical example might allow a better appreciation of the kind of anarchy that is occurring.

Over ninety percent of the Ummah fail to observe their Fajr salaat on time, undeniably due to weaknesses of the Nafs. Virtually all of them, at least subconsciously, accept that they are sinful and that they should rectify themselves. However, in the absence of a regulatory measure such as Taqleed Shaksi, and in the hypothetical scenario where a Mujtahid of one of the four Madhabs ruled that it is acceptable to pray Fajr after waking up, it is very easy to imagine that the vast majority of these people would deem it unnecessary to rectify oneself, and that greater priorities exist in life. Many would be genuinely convinced that their Nafs had no part to play in their judgement that the Mujtahid who issued such a ruling is the most knowledgable in this particular issue. Many would also believe that they are entitled to follow the easiest opinion in this matter.

The correctness of the ruling of the Deobandi Akabir on this issue becomes apparent when you observe that even amongst the laymen who follow their teachings, you will be hard-pressed to find someone who shaves his beard, does masah over thin socks, listens to music, practises doubtful forms of tawassul/istagathah, discards the ijma' practise of taraweeh, treats three talaqs as one, builds over graves, or adopts any other questionable practice prevalent amongst scholars today, whilst unrepentantly believing that he is merely following a valid methodology. The Deobandi ulama do accept that the expert scholar is permitted to adopt the ruling of another Madhab, providing certain conditions are met, such as avoiding any possibility of causing confusion amongst the laymen. However, revealing such caveats to those whom it is not relevant to, would only serve to defeat the purpose of the standard ruling they issue on this matter.

The fact that the Ashaab of the Shafi'i madhab and other early fuqaha felt that there was a need for Taqleed Shaksi nearly a millenium ago, despite the relative piety of their era, further vindicates and emphasizes on the correctness of the ruling of the Deobandi Akabir in these worst of times, close to the hour, when desires are more rampant than ever before.

[Jadeed]

Over ninety percent of the Ummah fail to observe their Fajr salaat on time, undeniably due to weaknesses of the Nafs. Virtually all of them, at least subconsciously, accept the fact that they are sinful and that they should rectify themselves. However, in the absence of a regulatory measure such as Taqleed Shaksi, and in the hypothetical scenario where a Mujtahid of one of the four Madhabs ruled that it is acceptable to pray Fajr after waking up, it is very easy to imagine that the vast majority of these people would not deem it necessary to rectify oneself, and that greater priorities exist in life. Many would be genuinely convinced that their Nafs had no part to play in their judgement that the Mujtahid who issued such a ruling is the most knowledgable in this particular issue. Many would also believe that they are entitled to follow the easiest opinion in this matter.

I'm willing to bet that a lot of laymen don't wake up for Fajr despite considering themselves 'Hanafis.' Does their being 'Hanafis' stop them from being lazy?

The only thing that stops people from following desires is taqwa and taqwa has nothing to do with what mad'hab a person follows or doesn't follow. Following a mad'hab does not make you a muttaqi. A lot of Barelwis follow the Hanafi mad'hab (in fact, nearly all of them) but it doesn't stop them from asking Abdul-Qadir Jilani for rizq and children.

[ImamGhazzaali]

Although, I would not like to divert from the topic of the mu'tamad in the Shafi'i school, it is clear that the minority opinion among the usulis (this includes the 'ulama from all the schools) is that of Taqleed Shakhsi whilst the majority have not obligated the people to follow one madhhab in all its issues.

Those who still insist on Taqlid Shakhsi for the laymen (despite their madhhab) are asked to remain at least balanced of accepting a valid view that there are many that have not obligated Taqlid Shakhsi and if one does not adhere to it, it is fine as long as he is not committing the haram type of Tafliq - which is not directly when a person abandons Taqlid Shakhsi he automatically falls into the haram type of Talfiq.

[alfatiha]

Is there any original post of this or is this from an email?