Tweet
Taqleed & Following one particular Madhab
NDIA
The author of the base text Musallam 'l-Thubūt (died 1119 A.H.) was Muḥibb 'llah bin ʿAbd 'l-Shakūr ál-Bihārī. The commentator on the book, Muḥammad bin Niẓām 'l-Dīn ál-Sahālawī (died 1225 A.H.) in Fawātiḥ 'l-Raḥamūt, said (printed beneath ál-Ghazālī’s ál-Mustaṣfā, 2/406, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ It is not necessary to stay on the school, and it is correct to switch to another, and this is the truth that should be believed in, but changing should not be done out of desires, as following desires is prohibited in both adopting a school and in other issues of law. (He refers to some later extremist Ḥanafīs in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as simulators (Mutakallifīn) who adopted hard handedness (Tashaddud).)
Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Inṣ ... if he is in the Ḥaramayn [or any place where there are scholars of multiple schools, then he may ask any scholar]...
Shāh Ismāʿīl bin Shāh ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Shāh Waliyyullāh bin Shāh ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm ál-Dihlawī (martyred 1246 A.H.) said (Mukhtaṣar Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah manuscript number 17-10821): Following a specific person is not obligatory; rather following any trustworthy person would suffice for the obligation.
PAKISTAN
Muḥammad Ḥayāt ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), footnoting on Ibn Nujaym’s statement, said (Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām, pg. 56, Dār Ibn Ḥ What he has mentioned is what the Qurān, the prophetic tradition and the statements of the best scholars of old and new have indicated towards. The opinion of anyone opposing this would not be taken into consideration...
Abū 'l-Ḥasan Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Hādī al-Sindī (died 1138 A.H.) said (taken from a questions posed to Ghannām al-Najdī al-Ḥanbalī (died 1237 A.H.), Ajwibah Laṭīfah ʿAn Arbaʿ Su'ālāt Sharīfah, audio transcript with commentary by Ṣāliḥ bin ʿAbd 'llāh al-ʿUṣaymī, tinyurl.com/bd5xllk, retrieved 13/2/2013): Mixing up [is] allowed.
RUSSIA
Shihāb 'l-Dīn ál-Marjānī Hārūn bin Bahā' 'l-Dīn bin Subḥān bin ʿAbd 'l-Karīm ál-Qāzānī (died 1306 A.H.) said (Nāẓūraŧ 'l-Ḥaqq Fī Farḍiyyaŧ 'l-ʿIshā' Wa-In Lam Yaghib á From where did this [claim of] consensus [come from] ([i.e.] that the layman must follow only one out of the Four Schools)? In fact, consensus has occurred on [precisely] the opposite.
TAJIKISTAN
Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAli bin 'l-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad ál-Sughdī (died 461 A.H.) said (Ál-Nutaf Fī ál-Fatāwā, 2/861, Mu'assasaŧ 'l-Risālaħ Beirut, 2nd edition, 1404 A.H.): Similarly, if it was a learned person facing an issue [of potential divorce after he uttered something to his wife], so he asked a jurist regarding [what he uttered to his wife], and [the jurist] passed the verdict of [her] legality or illegality [upon him], but [the questioner] did not set himself upon the verdict [to occur on his wife] nor did he pass it on [his wife], but rather asked another jurist, and [this second jurist] passed a verdict that was opposite to the first jurist’s verdict, and [the questioner] passed [this second verdict on his wife] and set himself upon [this second verdict] for himself and his wife, and he abandoned the verdict of the first jurist, then [the second verdict] would become binding upon him. He cannot [now] take the first jurist’s verdict by discarding [the second] verdict which he had set himself upon... If a jurist gave [the questioner] a verdict, but he did not set upon it in regards to his wife nor did he pass it on her before having asked another jurist, then it is permissible for him to take either of the verdicts him, set himself upon it and pass it [on his wife].
Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 47, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437): If a female minor was married off by her representative to a male minor in the testimony of transgressors and the father of [the male minor] accepted, then they reached adulthood but there was remote absence between the couple, the [Ḥanafī] judge is allowed to send [the case of the female] to a Shāfiʿi [judge] to annul the marriage based on this reason. The Ḥanafī judge may himself execute this also by taking [the Shāfiʿi] position, even though it is not be his own position...
Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 51, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437): If a Ḥanafī facing a situation asks a Shāfiʿi and he told him that divorce would not occur, it would not be correct for [the Ḥanafī to take this verdict]. Only his belief [in the preference of the Ḥanafī School over the Shāfiʿi School] would be considered, so if he does something that goes against his belief, it would be religiously illegal for him.
AFGHANISTAN
Mullā ‘Alī ál-Qārī (died 1040 A.H.) said (taken from Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām by Muḥammad Ḥayāħ ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), pg. 33-34, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.): It is not obligatory upon anyone from the believing community to be a Ḥanafī, or a Shāfiʿī, or a Mālikī; rather, what is obligatory upon each person, if he is not a scholar, to follow one of these great scholars, as Allāh said, “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know”...
Yūsuf bin Abī Saʿīd ál-Sijistānī (died post-638 A.H.?) said (Munyaŧ 'l-Muftī, pg. 63, Houghton Library, Harvard University Cambridge MA): An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.
UZBEKISTAN
Abū 'l-Barakāt ʿAbd 'llāh bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmūd ál-Nasafī (died 701 A.H.) reports from ʿAlī bin Muḥammad bin ʿAlī (died 666 A.H.) who reports from ʿUbayd 'llāh bin Ibrāhīm bin Aḥmad ál-Maḥbūbī (died 630 A.H.) who said (taken from Nāẓūraŧ 'l-Ḥaqq Fī Farḍiyyaŧ 'l-ʿIshā The slack Bukharans are not to be stopped from performing prayer during sunrise, because it is more likely than not that should they be stopped from it and be ordered to stay in the mosque until the sun rises [fully so they can make up for Fajr), or to go back and return [to the mosque to repeat Fajr as per mainstream Ḥanafī law, or to go home and repeat Fajr after sunrise is complete], they will not do so and will not make up for it [out of laziness]. If they perform [Fajr] in this state [when the sun begins to rise], then [realize that] some of the Aṣḥāb 'l-Ḥadīth have allowed it: to perform [prayer] on time that is considered permissible by some Imāms is far better than to abandon [it completely].
Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Ḥamīd ál-Usmandī (died 552 A.H.), said (Badhl 'l-Naẓr Fī ál-Uṣūl, pg. 693-694, Maktabaŧ Dār 'l-Turāth Cairo, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.): If another legalist has a difference of opinion with [the layman's] Mufti, the [layman's] legalist can give the layman a choice whether he wants to take his opinion or the other Mufti's opinion, because both opinions are from Ijtihād.
Abū Naṣr Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-ʿAttābī (died 586 A.H.) said in his Jawāmiʿ 'l-Fiqh (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451): If a layman is given different verdicts by the Muftīs, he would be obliged by the verdict he chooses and sets himself upon. It has [also] been said that [he would be obliged by] the first verdict [that was given to him]. Once he chooses one, then he came to face the same situation [at another time], he should not abandon [the verdict he had implemented].
Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Samarqandī (died 539 A.H.) said (Mīzān 'l-Uṣūl Fī Natā'ij 'l-ʿUqūl, pg. 1017, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1404 A.H.): As for Taqlīd in legal issues, it is impermissible except for laymen and those students of knowledge who are like laymen until as long as they do not reach the level of Ijtihād. This is due to necessity. However, they must follow whoever is the most knowledgeable and the most fearful in their estimation. [This can be ascertained] via hearing out for fame [in the scholar].
Ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd Abū Muḥammad ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz (died 536 A.H.) said in his ál-Fatāwā ál-Ṣughrā (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451): If a person asked for a verdict, and one scholar passed the verdict of permissibility, then another passed the verdict of illegality after the questioner had implemented the verdict of the first, then he [can] implement the verdict of the second in relation to another wife [of his], but not in relation to his first wife.
Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Malik ál-Baghdādī (died 1016 A.H.) said (taken from Khulāṣaŧ 'l-Taḥqīq Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.), pg. 5, Maktabaŧ 'l-Ḥ Realise that the position of the majority, which was chosen by Ibn 'l-Humām, is that the adherence [to a school of law] in itself is not the primary obligation; rather it is permissible for anyone to ask in any matter whichever scholar he chooses and implement his verdict thereafter, as was the case in the better eras [i.e. that] of the Companions and those who came after them, may Allah be pleased with them all.
Regarding Abū ʿAlī ál-Ḥusayn bin 'l-Khaḍir ál-Nasafī (died 424 A.H.), Ibn Māzah Maḥmūd bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz ál-Bukhārī (died 616 A.H.) said (Ál-Muḥīṭ ál-Burhānī, 4/255, ál-Majlis ál-ʿIlmī Johannesburg, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.): An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife... This is what has been reported... from... Justice Abū ʿAlī ál-Nasafī (May Allāh have mercy on him).
IRAN
Regarding Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Abī Sahl ál-Sarakhsī (died around 500 A.H.), ál-Marjānī (died 1304 A.H.) reports (Nāẓūraŧ 'l-Ḥaqq Fī Farḍiyyaŧ 'l-ʿIshā' Wa-In Lam Yaghib á that when Ẓahīr 'l-Dīn ál-Marghīnānī came from Fergana, he saw the slack Bukharans performing ʿIshā' before the disappearance of the [white] twilight. He wanted to stop them from [doing] this, [but] then he met Shams 'l-A'immaħ ál-Sarakhsī and sought his advice in what he was intending to do. He said, “Do not do it. If you stop them from this, they will totally stop [performing ʿIshā']. As of now, they are performing it at a time which is considered permissible by some Imāms.”
Dāwūd bin Yūsuf ál-Khaṭīb (died post-600 A.H.?) – quoting Shams 'l-A'immaħ ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad bin Naṣr ál-Ḥalwānī (died 448 A.H.) – said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Ghiyāthiyyaħ, pg. 85, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.
ʿAlā' 'l-Dīn Abū Bakr bin Masʿūd ál-Kāsānī (died 787 A.H.) said (Badā'iʿ 'l-Ṣanā'iʿ, 7/6, Dār 'l-Kitāb ál-ʿArabī Beirut, 2nd edition, 1394 A.H.): Also, if a person is not a jurist, and he asked a jurist about something and he gave him his opinion of lawfulness or illegality, and he did not implement that opinion, then another jurist gave him a different opinion and he took it and implemented it in his wife [vis-a-vis divorce (etc.)], then this non-jurist cannot abandon the opinion he implemented in favour of the first jurist's opinion, because adhering to what one implements is obligatory.
Abū Bakr ál-Jaṣṣāṣ ál-Rāzī (died 370 A.H.) said (Ál-Fuṣūl Fī ál-Uṣūl, 4/282-3, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Kuwait, 2nd edition, 1414 A.H.): Because it is established that a layman must ask scholars, then either he has a choice of asking any, or he should do Ijtihād and ask the most knowledgeable and fearing according to [the concerned layman]... some said that he must ask the knowledgeable and fearful according to [the concerned layman]... and this is the correct opinion according to us... then it is impermissible for him... to do Taqlīd without Ijtihād, because [surely] he possesses this type of Ijtihād.
And if that’s not enough, throw in the Shafi`is too
IRAN
Regarding Ibn Kajj Abū 'l-Qāsim Yūsuf bin Aḥmad al-Daynawarī (died 405 A.H.), al-Rāfiʿī (died 623 A.H.) said (Al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr, 12/424, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1417 A.H.): [The opinion of the obligation of asking the most knowledgeable person available] is the choice of Justice Ibn Kajj.
Regarding Abū Bakr ʿAbd 'llāh bin Aḥmad al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī (died 417 A.H.):
- Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ (died 643 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Wa-Masā'il Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ, pg. 86, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.): [Searching for the best available scholar] is obligatory [on the layman]. It is the opinion of Ibn Surayj, is the choice of al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, and is the correct position according to his disciple, Justice Ḥusayn.
- Al-Ramlī (died 1004 A.H.) said (Nihāyat 'l-Muḥtāj Ilā Sharḥ 'l-Minhāj, 2/429, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 3rd edition, 1424 A.H.): From al-Qaffāl’s edicts: If a person, unable to find either of the two means of purification, abandoned prayer intentionally; or a Shāfiʿī touched his private part or touched a woman, or he did ablution without having intended [it], then performed prayer; then [neither] would be liable for capital punishment, because the [acceptance] of his prayer is differed over. Some in [their] research have stipulated that [this is] when he follows [the Imām] who adopted [the position of permissibility of prayer]; otherwise, there would be nobody of the opinion of his prayer’s permissibility… The position that appears correct [in this latter case] is capital punishment as he would have abandoned [prayer] according to [the positions of both] his own Imām and other [Imāms]. It is thus learned that abandoning dry ablution is equal to abandoning ablution if [purification] had become obligatory upon him by consensus [of all schools], or with difference [i.e. had become obligatory upon him in one Imām’s opinion] yet did not follow [the Imām] who opined for the non-obligation [of purification].
Regarding Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin Mahrān al-Isfarāyīnī (died 418 A.H.), al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.) said (Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 6/311, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwah Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.): If there is only one jurisconsult, referring to him would have become specified. If there is a group, does he then have to assess who is the most knowledgeable? There are two positions in this, based on the previous difference with regards to following the lesser [jurisconsult]. One of [the two positions] – which is the opinion of Ibn Surayj and al-Qaffāl – is that he must undertake another Ijtihād in searching for [the most knowledgeable], as he can [learn of the superior jurisconsult] via listening to reliable sources, and this is not hard for him. This view was considered correct by Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī and Ilkiyā, because the superior [jurisconsult] it is the one who is more likely guided in the minute aspects of the law.
Regarding Abū ʿAlī Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad al-Marwarrūdhī (died 462 A.H.), Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ (died 643 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Wa-Masā'il Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ, pg. 87, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.): [Searching for the best available scholar] is obligatory [on the layman]. It is the opinion of Ibn Surayj, is the choice of al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, and is the correct position according to his disciple, Justice Ḥusayn.
Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm bin ʿAlī bin Yūsuf al-Shīrāzī (died 476 A.H.) said (Al-Lumaʿ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 256, Dār Ibn Kathīr Beirut, 1st edition, 1416 A.H.): The first position [i.e. the one in which it states that the layman may follow whichever scholar he likes without undertaking Ijtihād] is more correct.
Abū 'l-Maʿālī ʿAbd 'l-Malik bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Yūsuf al-Juwaynī (died 478 A.H.) said (Al-Burhān, 2/1343-1344, Government of Qatar, 1st edition, 1399 A.H.): As for [seeking a] legal edict, it is not obligatory according to me to refer to the best scholar, because the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) used to refer to [any] jurist during their abundance and did not refer only to the best amongst them… If a situation is [brought forth to] two jurists… and the answer [of each contradicts the other], the questioner should follow the most knowledgeable…
Abū 'l-Muẓaffar Manṣūr bin Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Jabbār al-Samʿānī (died 489 A.H.) said (Qawāṭiʿ 'l-Adillah, 5/142, Maktabat 'l-Tawbah Riyadh, 1st edition, 1419 A.H.): If the questioner finds another [jurist as well], then [taking] the verdict of [the first jurist] would be good, [but it is] not a specified obligation.
Abū 'l-Fatḥ (ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'llāh?) al-Harawī (died 493 A.H.?) said (taken from al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr by al-Rāfiʿī (died 623 A.H.), 12/422, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1417 A.H.): The position of most of our disciples is that the layman has no school of his own: if he finds a Mujtahid, he would follow him; otherwise, if he finds a scholar trained in a school, he would give him the ruling based on his own school, even if the layman is not of his school.
Abū 'l-Maḥāsin ʿAbd 'l-Wāḥid bin Ismāʿīl al-Rūyānī (died 502 A.H.) said (Baḥr 'l-Madhhab, 1/35, Dār Iḥyā' 'l-Turāth al-ʿArabī Beirut, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.): If a layman intends to follow a scholar, does he have to undertake Ijtihād in regards to specific individuals? Ibn Surayj said he must do so, because [this process] is not difficult… Others from our disciples say – and this is the most correct view – that he does not have to, and he can follow whichever well-known scholar he likes, just as it is not necessary for him to undertake Ijtihād in regards to locating evidence…
Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad al-Ghazzālī (died 505 A.H.) said (Al-Mustaṣfā, 2/390-391, al-Maṭbaʿah al-Amīriyyah Cairo, 1st edition, 1324 A.H.): If there is only one jurist in the city, the layman would [de facto] refer [only] to him. If there are a number [of them], he may ask whomsoever he wishes: it is not necessary to refer to the most knowledgeable, as was the case in the time of the Companions, where laymen used to ask [both] the lesser and the superior [jurist], and no interdiction was placed on the people from asking anyone other than from Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and the other caliphs… If two jurists differ in front of him with regards to a ruling, he should refer back to them if they are equal [in knowledge and piety] and should say, “Your rulings are conflicting, and you are both equal in my eyes, so what is binding on me?” If they give him a choice, he would have a choice; if they agree upon the safer position or a specific [ruling], he should [act accordingly]; if they insist upon disagreement, the only option is that he has a choice…
Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn bin Masʿūd bin 'l-Farrā' al-Baghawī (died 516 A.H.) said (Al-Tahdhīb, 1/131, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.): If the Ijtihād of two scholars differs in front of a layman, he should take the opinion of the most knowledgeable in the law. If they are equal, [or] the one who is the most knowledgeable in law is not clear [to him], he should take the stricter position out of safety.
Muḥammad bin ʿUmar bin 'l-Ḥusayn al-Rāzī (died 606 A.H.) said (Al-Maḥṣūl, 6/81, Mu'assasat 'l-Risālah Beirut, 3rd edition, 1418 A.H.): If [the Mujtahids] differ, a group said that he must undertake Ijtihād to ascertain the most knowledgeable and the most pious, because that is the method for his belief to be strengthened, [and] is tantamount to the strengthening of the belief of a Mujtahid [who undertakes Ijtihād to ascertain the strongest of evidences]. Others said he does not have to undertake this Ijtihād, because scholars of all eras have not condemned laymen for abandoning the vetting process vis-à-vis the situation of scholars [in terms of superiority in knowledge and piety].
Abū 'l-Qāsim ʿAbd 'l-Karīm bin Muḥammad al-Rāfiʿī (died 623 A.H.) said (Al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr, 12/427, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1417 A.H.): If he follows a Mujtahid in some issues, and another in other issues, and the Mujtahids are equal according to him [as per the opinion of Ibn 'l-Ṣabbāgh] – or let us say he would have a choice – then what the practice of the ancients necessitates is that of [its] permissibility, as they used to ask [one scholar] at times [and another at other times] without any condemnation.
Regarding Ibn Abī 'l-Dam Ibrāhīm bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAbd 'l-Munʿim al-Hamdānī (died 642 A.H.), al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.) said in his Khādim 'l-Rāfiʿī Wa-'l-Rawḍah (taken from al-ʿIqd al-Farīd Fī Aḥkām 'l-Taqlīd by al-Samhūdī (died 911 A.H.), pg. 108, Dār 'l-Minhāj Jeddah, 1st edition, 1432 A.H.): This whole difference [of opinion] is for Mujtahids. As for laymen who are followers in legal rulings, they are not intended by this discourse, as they have no school which they could stand on. Their only obligation, when a situation befalls, is to follow. Whichever person qualified to pass rulings gives them an edict, they must accept his statement. [As for t]heir ascription to the schools[, it is] purely dogmatic.
Regarding ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿUmar al-Bayḍāwī (died 685 A.H.), Ibn Imām 'l-Kāmiliyyah (died 874 A.H.) said (Taysīr 'l-Wuṣūl Ilā Minhāj 'l-Uṣūl, 6/343, Dār 'l-Fārūq al-Ḥadīthah Cairo, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.): It is learned from [al-Bayḍāwī’s] passage that it is permissible to follow a lesser Mujtahid in spite of the ability to follow the superior [Mujtahid], and this is the famous position.
Al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad bin Sharafshāh al-Astarābādhī (died 715 A.H.) said (Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar Muntahā 'l-Sūl Wa-'l-Amal – from the chapter of ʿĀmm to the end of the book, 2/984-985, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1422 A.H.): The preferred position according to the author is that it is permissible for a lay follower to follow the lesser scholar and abandon the superior scholar. Supporting us is the conviction that scholars used to pass rulings despite being known for being lesser in status, and this happened continuously for them – nobody condemned the following of the lesser scholar, therefore this becomes a consensus on its permissibility.
Abū 'l-Thanā' Maḥmūd bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Aḥmad al-Aṣfahānī (died 749 A.H.) said (Bayān 'l-Mukhtaṣar, 3/370, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.): The preferred position is it is permissible for a follower [of one school] to refer to another Mujtahid in another issue.
Al-Ījī Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-Ghaffār al-Muṭarrizī al-Shīrāzī (died 756 A.H.) said (Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar Muntahā 'l-Sūl Wa-'l-Amal, 3/644, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.): If one adheres to a specific school – even though it was not binding on him [in the first place] – like the school of Mālik or al-Shāfiʿī or others, then there are three opinions…
UZBEKISTAN
Regarding Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAlī bin Ismāʿīl al-Qaffāl al-Shāshī (died 365 A.H.), al-Ṭahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Ṭahṭāwī ʿAlā al-Durr al-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50-51): Abū ʿĀṣim Muḥammad bin Aḥmad al-ʿĀmirī [al-Ḥanafī – died around 400 A.H.] used to pass verdicts by the door of al-Qaffāl’s mosque. The [Shāfiʿī] muezzin [once] called for prayer, so [al-ʿĀmirī] left [his place] and entered the mosque. When al-Qaffāl saw him, he ordered the muezzin to double the prayer announcement [i.e. the Iqāmah, as per the Ḥanafī position] and put [al-ʿĀmirī] forward [to lead prayer]. He stepped forward [to lead], read Basmalah aloud and performed prayer on the Shāfiʿī method.
INDIA
Ṣafī 'l-Dīn al-Hindī Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad al-Armawī (died 725 A.H.) said (Nihāyat 'l-Wuṣūl Fī Dirāyat 'l-Uṣūl, 8/3908, al-Maktabah al-Tijāriyyah Makkah, 1st edition, 1416 A.H.): The layman has the capability to undertake Ijtihād in preferring one scholar over another, [but] not [in] rulings [per se]. This is because he can learn of the superior scholar via fame and indications… like a person who has a sick child and is not a doctor: if he gives him medicine based on his personal opinion, he would have transgressed and would be deemed to be careless; if he referred to a doctor, he would not be deemed to be careless; if in the city there are two doctors who differ in the medicine and he opposed the superior [doctor], he would be considered negligent…
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Mulaybārī (died 987 A.H.) said (Fatḥ 'l-Muʿīn Bi-Sharḥ Qurrat 'l-ʿAyn Bi-Muhimmāt 'l-Din, pg. 223, Markaz Tawʿiyat 'l-Fiqh al-Islāmī, Hyderabad Deccan, 2nd edition, 1424 A.H.):When a layman sticks to a school, he must stay in accordance with it. [If he has not done so already], he must adopt a specific school out of the Four, not any other. He may then switch to another school even if he has acted on the first, [either] in totality, or [just] in some issues with the condition that he does not continuously search for dispensations…
Abū Bakr bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad Shihāb 'l-Dīn al-ʿAlawī al-Ḥusaynī (died 1341 A.H.) said (Al-Tiryāq al-Nāfiʿ Bi-Īḍāḥ Wa-Takmīl Masā'il Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, 2/205, Maṭbaʿat Majlis Dā'irat 'l-Maʿārif al-Niẓāmiyyah Hyderabad, 1st edition, 1317 A.H.): The third scenario is that another situation other than the previous situation arises for him. The most correct is that it is permissible to ask another scholar other than the one he asked in the previous situation.
Abū 'l-Saʿādāt Aḥmad bin ʿAlī al-Mulaybārī (died 1374 A.H.) summarised and agreed with Muḥammad bin Sulaymān al-Kurdī al-Madanī’s (died 1194 A.H.) conclusions. (See al-ʿAwā'id al-Dīniyyah Fī Talkhīṣ 'l-Fawā'id al-Madaniyyah Fī Bayān Man Yuftā Bi-Qawlih Min Muta'akhkhirī 'l-Sādah al-Shāfiʿiyyah, Dār 'l-Baṣā'ir Cairo, 1st edition, 1431 A.H.)
The author of the base text Musallam 'l-Thubūt (died 1119 A.H.) was Muḥibb 'llah bin ʿAbd 'l-Shakūr ál-Bihārī. The commentator on the book, Muḥammad bin Niẓām 'l-Dīn ál-Sahālawī (died 1225 A.H.) in Fawātiḥ 'l-Raḥamūt, said (printed beneath ál-Ghazālī’s ál-Mustaṣfā, 2/406, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ It is not necessary to stay on the school, and it is correct to switch to another, and this is the truth that should be believed in, but changing should not be done out of desires, as following desires is prohibited in both adopting a school and in other issues of law. (He refers to some later extremist Ḥanafīs in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as simulators (Mutakallifīn) who adopted hard handedness (Tashaddud).)
Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Inṣ ... if he is in the Ḥaramayn [or any place where there are scholars of multiple schools, then he may ask any scholar]...
Shāh Ismāʿīl bin Shāh ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Shāh Waliyyullāh bin Shāh ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm ál-Dihlawī (martyred 1246 A.H.) said (Mukhtaṣar Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah manuscript number 17-10821): Following a specific person is not obligatory; rather following any trustworthy person would suffice for the obligation.
PAKISTAN
Muḥammad Ḥayāt ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), footnoting on Ibn Nujaym’s statement, said (Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām, pg. 56, Dār Ibn Ḥ What he has mentioned is what the Qurān, the prophetic tradition and the statements of the best scholars of old and new have indicated towards. The opinion of anyone opposing this would not be taken into consideration...
Abū 'l-Ḥasan Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Hādī al-Sindī (died 1138 A.H.) said (taken from a questions posed to Ghannām al-Najdī al-Ḥanbalī (died 1237 A.H.), Ajwibah Laṭīfah ʿAn Arbaʿ Su'ālāt Sharīfah, audio transcript with commentary by Ṣāliḥ bin ʿAbd 'llāh al-ʿUṣaymī, tinyurl.com/bd5xllk, retrieved 13/2/2013): Mixing up [is] allowed.
RUSSIA
Shihāb 'l-Dīn ál-Marjānī Hārūn bin Bahā' 'l-Dīn bin Subḥān bin ʿAbd 'l-Karīm ál-Qāzānī (died 1306 A.H.) said (Nāẓūraŧ 'l-Ḥaqq Fī Farḍiyyaŧ 'l-ʿIshā' Wa-In Lam Yaghib á From where did this [claim of] consensus [come from] ([i.e.] that the layman must follow only one out of the Four Schools)? In fact, consensus has occurred on [precisely] the opposite.
TAJIKISTAN
Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAli bin 'l-Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad ál-Sughdī (died 461 A.H.) said (Ál-Nutaf Fī ál-Fatāwā, 2/861, Mu'assasaŧ 'l-Risālaħ Beirut, 2nd edition, 1404 A.H.): Similarly, if it was a learned person facing an issue [of potential divorce after he uttered something to his wife], so he asked a jurist regarding [what he uttered to his wife], and [the jurist] passed the verdict of [her] legality or illegality [upon him], but [the questioner] did not set himself upon the verdict [to occur on his wife] nor did he pass it on [his wife], but rather asked another jurist, and [this second jurist] passed a verdict that was opposite to the first jurist’s verdict, and [the questioner] passed [this second verdict on his wife] and set himself upon [this second verdict] for himself and his wife, and he abandoned the verdict of the first jurist, then [the second verdict] would become binding upon him. He cannot [now] take the first jurist’s verdict by discarding [the second] verdict which he had set himself upon... If a jurist gave [the questioner] a verdict, but he did not set upon it in regards to his wife nor did he pass it on her before having asked another jurist, then it is permissible for him to take either of the verdicts him, set himself upon it and pass it [on his wife].
Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 47, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437): If a female minor was married off by her representative to a male minor in the testimony of transgressors and the father of [the male minor] accepted, then they reached adulthood but there was remote absence between the couple, the [Ḥanafī] judge is allowed to send [the case of the female] to a Shāfiʿi [judge] to annul the marriage based on this reason. The Ḥanafī judge may himself execute this also by taking [the Shāfiʿi] position, even though it is not be his own position...
Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAṭā' bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Sughdī (died around 500 A.H.) said (taken from Jawāhir 'l-Fatāwā by Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rashīd ál-Kirmānī (died 565 A.H.), pg. 51, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1437): If a Ḥanafī facing a situation asks a Shāfiʿi and he told him that divorce would not occur, it would not be correct for [the Ḥanafī to take this verdict]. Only his belief [in the preference of the Ḥanafī School over the Shāfiʿi School] would be considered, so if he does something that goes against his belief, it would be religiously illegal for him.
AFGHANISTAN
Mullā ‘Alī ál-Qārī (died 1040 A.H.) said (taken from Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām by Muḥammad Ḥayāħ ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), pg. 33-34, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.): It is not obligatory upon anyone from the believing community to be a Ḥanafī, or a Shāfiʿī, or a Mālikī; rather, what is obligatory upon each person, if he is not a scholar, to follow one of these great scholars, as Allāh said, “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know”...
Yūsuf bin Abī Saʿīd ál-Sijistānī (died post-638 A.H.?) said (Munyaŧ 'l-Muftī, pg. 63, Houghton Library, Harvard University Cambridge MA): An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.
UZBEKISTAN
Abū 'l-Barakāt ʿAbd 'llāh bin Aḥmad bin Maḥmūd ál-Nasafī (died 701 A.H.) reports from ʿAlī bin Muḥammad bin ʿAlī (died 666 A.H.) who reports from ʿUbayd 'llāh bin Ibrāhīm bin Aḥmad ál-Maḥbūbī (died 630 A.H.) who said (taken from Nāẓūraŧ 'l-Ḥaqq Fī Farḍiyyaŧ 'l-ʿIshā The slack Bukharans are not to be stopped from performing prayer during sunrise, because it is more likely than not that should they be stopped from it and be ordered to stay in the mosque until the sun rises [fully so they can make up for Fajr), or to go back and return [to the mosque to repeat Fajr as per mainstream Ḥanafī law, or to go home and repeat Fajr after sunrise is complete], they will not do so and will not make up for it [out of laziness]. If they perform [Fajr] in this state [when the sun begins to rise], then [realize that] some of the Aṣḥāb 'l-Ḥadīth have allowed it: to perform [prayer] on time that is considered permissible by some Imāms is far better than to abandon [it completely].
Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Ḥamīd ál-Usmandī (died 552 A.H.), said (Badhl 'l-Naẓr Fī ál-Uṣūl, pg. 693-694, Maktabaŧ Dār 'l-Turāth Cairo, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.): If another legalist has a difference of opinion with [the layman's] Mufti, the [layman's] legalist can give the layman a choice whether he wants to take his opinion or the other Mufti's opinion, because both opinions are from Ijtihād.
Abū Naṣr Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-ʿAttābī (died 586 A.H.) said in his Jawāmiʿ 'l-Fiqh (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451): If a layman is given different verdicts by the Muftīs, he would be obliged by the verdict he chooses and sets himself upon. It has [also] been said that [he would be obliged by] the first verdict [that was given to him]. Once he chooses one, then he came to face the same situation [at another time], he should not abandon [the verdict he had implemented].
Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Samarqandī (died 539 A.H.) said (Mīzān 'l-Uṣūl Fī Natā'ij 'l-ʿUqūl, pg. 1017, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1404 A.H.): As for Taqlīd in legal issues, it is impermissible except for laymen and those students of knowledge who are like laymen until as long as they do not reach the level of Ijtihād. This is due to necessity. However, they must follow whoever is the most knowledgeable and the most fearful in their estimation. [This can be ascertained] via hearing out for fame [in the scholar].
Ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd Abū Muḥammad ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz (died 536 A.H.) said in his ál-Fatāwā ál-Ṣughrā (taken from Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar by Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451): If a person asked for a verdict, and one scholar passed the verdict of permissibility, then another passed the verdict of illegality after the questioner had implemented the verdict of the first, then he [can] implement the verdict of the second in relation to another wife [of his], but not in relation to his first wife.
Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Malik ál-Baghdādī (died 1016 A.H.) said (taken from Khulāṣaŧ 'l-Taḥqīq Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.), pg. 5, Maktabaŧ 'l-Ḥ Realise that the position of the majority, which was chosen by Ibn 'l-Humām, is that the adherence [to a school of law] in itself is not the primary obligation; rather it is permissible for anyone to ask in any matter whichever scholar he chooses and implement his verdict thereafter, as was the case in the better eras [i.e. that] of the Companions and those who came after them, may Allah be pleased with them all.
Regarding Abū ʿAlī ál-Ḥusayn bin 'l-Khaḍir ál-Nasafī (died 424 A.H.), Ibn Māzah Maḥmūd bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz ál-Bukhārī (died 616 A.H.) said (Ál-Muḥīṭ ál-Burhānī, 4/255, ál-Majlis ál-ʿIlmī Johannesburg, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.): An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife... This is what has been reported... from... Justice Abū ʿAlī ál-Nasafī (May Allāh have mercy on him).
IRAN
Regarding Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Abī Sahl ál-Sarakhsī (died around 500 A.H.), ál-Marjānī (died 1304 A.H.) reports (Nāẓūraŧ 'l-Ḥaqq Fī Farḍiyyaŧ 'l-ʿIshā' Wa-In Lam Yaghib á that when Ẓahīr 'l-Dīn ál-Marghīnānī came from Fergana, he saw the slack Bukharans performing ʿIshā' before the disappearance of the [white] twilight. He wanted to stop them from [doing] this, [but] then he met Shams 'l-A'immaħ ál-Sarakhsī and sought his advice in what he was intending to do. He said, “Do not do it. If you stop them from this, they will totally stop [performing ʿIshā']. As of now, they are performing it at a time which is considered permissible by some Imāms.”
Dāwūd bin Yūsuf ál-Khaṭīb (died post-600 A.H.?) – quoting Shams 'l-A'immaħ ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad bin Naṣr ál-Ḥalwānī (died 448 A.H.) – said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Ghiyāthiyyaħ, pg. 85, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ An even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists: if a person facing the situation asks a judicious jurist who is qualified to pass verdicts and he replied that the suspension [of divorce upon marriage] is redundant [which is against the mainstream Ḥanafī verdict], it would be permissible for him to take his verdict and retain his wife.
ʿAlā' 'l-Dīn Abū Bakr bin Masʿūd ál-Kāsānī (died 787 A.H.) said (Badā'iʿ 'l-Ṣanā'iʿ, 7/6, Dār 'l-Kitāb ál-ʿArabī Beirut, 2nd edition, 1394 A.H.): Also, if a person is not a jurist, and he asked a jurist about something and he gave him his opinion of lawfulness or illegality, and he did not implement that opinion, then another jurist gave him a different opinion and he took it and implemented it in his wife [vis-a-vis divorce (etc.)], then this non-jurist cannot abandon the opinion he implemented in favour of the first jurist's opinion, because adhering to what one implements is obligatory.
Abū Bakr ál-Jaṣṣāṣ ál-Rāzī (died 370 A.H.) said (Ál-Fuṣūl Fī ál-Uṣūl, 4/282-3, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Kuwait, 2nd edition, 1414 A.H.): Because it is established that a layman must ask scholars, then either he has a choice of asking any, or he should do Ijtihād and ask the most knowledgeable and fearing according to [the concerned layman]... some said that he must ask the knowledgeable and fearful according to [the concerned layman]... and this is the correct opinion according to us... then it is impermissible for him... to do Taqlīd without Ijtihād, because [surely] he possesses this type of Ijtihād.
And if that’s not enough, throw in the Shafi`is too
IRAN
Regarding Ibn Kajj Abū 'l-Qāsim Yūsuf bin Aḥmad al-Daynawarī (died 405 A.H.), al-Rāfiʿī (died 623 A.H.) said (Al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr, 12/424, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1417 A.H.): [The opinion of the obligation of asking the most knowledgeable person available] is the choice of Justice Ibn Kajj.
Regarding Abū Bakr ʿAbd 'llāh bin Aḥmad al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī (died 417 A.H.):
- Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ (died 643 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Wa-Masā'il Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ, pg. 86, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.): [Searching for the best available scholar] is obligatory [on the layman]. It is the opinion of Ibn Surayj, is the choice of al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, and is the correct position according to his disciple, Justice Ḥusayn.
- Al-Ramlī (died 1004 A.H.) said (Nihāyat 'l-Muḥtāj Ilā Sharḥ 'l-Minhāj, 2/429, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 3rd edition, 1424 A.H.): From al-Qaffāl’s edicts: If a person, unable to find either of the two means of purification, abandoned prayer intentionally; or a Shāfiʿī touched his private part or touched a woman, or he did ablution without having intended [it], then performed prayer; then [neither] would be liable for capital punishment, because the [acceptance] of his prayer is differed over. Some in [their] research have stipulated that [this is] when he follows [the Imām] who adopted [the position of permissibility of prayer]; otherwise, there would be nobody of the opinion of his prayer’s permissibility… The position that appears correct [in this latter case] is capital punishment as he would have abandoned [prayer] according to [the positions of both] his own Imām and other [Imāms]. It is thus learned that abandoning dry ablution is equal to abandoning ablution if [purification] had become obligatory upon him by consensus [of all schools], or with difference [i.e. had become obligatory upon him in one Imām’s opinion] yet did not follow [the Imām] who opined for the non-obligation [of purification].
Regarding Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin Mahrān al-Isfarāyīnī (died 418 A.H.), al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.) said (Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 6/311, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwah Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.): If there is only one jurisconsult, referring to him would have become specified. If there is a group, does he then have to assess who is the most knowledgeable? There are two positions in this, based on the previous difference with regards to following the lesser [jurisconsult]. One of [the two positions] – which is the opinion of Ibn Surayj and al-Qaffāl – is that he must undertake another Ijtihād in searching for [the most knowledgeable], as he can [learn of the superior jurisconsult] via listening to reliable sources, and this is not hard for him. This view was considered correct by Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī and Ilkiyā, because the superior [jurisconsult] it is the one who is more likely guided in the minute aspects of the law.
Regarding Abū ʿAlī Ḥusayn bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad al-Marwarrūdhī (died 462 A.H.), Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ (died 643 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Wa-Masā'il Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ, pg. 87, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.): [Searching for the best available scholar] is obligatory [on the layman]. It is the opinion of Ibn Surayj, is the choice of al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, and is the correct position according to his disciple, Justice Ḥusayn.
Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm bin ʿAlī bin Yūsuf al-Shīrāzī (died 476 A.H.) said (Al-Lumaʿ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 256, Dār Ibn Kathīr Beirut, 1st edition, 1416 A.H.): The first position [i.e. the one in which it states that the layman may follow whichever scholar he likes without undertaking Ijtihād] is more correct.
Abū 'l-Maʿālī ʿAbd 'l-Malik bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Yūsuf al-Juwaynī (died 478 A.H.) said (Al-Burhān, 2/1343-1344, Government of Qatar, 1st edition, 1399 A.H.): As for [seeking a] legal edict, it is not obligatory according to me to refer to the best scholar, because the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) used to refer to [any] jurist during their abundance and did not refer only to the best amongst them… If a situation is [brought forth to] two jurists… and the answer [of each contradicts the other], the questioner should follow the most knowledgeable…
Abū 'l-Muẓaffar Manṣūr bin Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Jabbār al-Samʿānī (died 489 A.H.) said (Qawāṭiʿ 'l-Adillah, 5/142, Maktabat 'l-Tawbah Riyadh, 1st edition, 1419 A.H.): If the questioner finds another [jurist as well], then [taking] the verdict of [the first jurist] would be good, [but it is] not a specified obligation.
Abū 'l-Fatḥ (ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'llāh?) al-Harawī (died 493 A.H.?) said (taken from al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr by al-Rāfiʿī (died 623 A.H.), 12/422, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1417 A.H.): The position of most of our disciples is that the layman has no school of his own: if he finds a Mujtahid, he would follow him; otherwise, if he finds a scholar trained in a school, he would give him the ruling based on his own school, even if the layman is not of his school.
Abū 'l-Maḥāsin ʿAbd 'l-Wāḥid bin Ismāʿīl al-Rūyānī (died 502 A.H.) said (Baḥr 'l-Madhhab, 1/35, Dār Iḥyā' 'l-Turāth al-ʿArabī Beirut, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.): If a layman intends to follow a scholar, does he have to undertake Ijtihād in regards to specific individuals? Ibn Surayj said he must do so, because [this process] is not difficult… Others from our disciples say – and this is the most correct view – that he does not have to, and he can follow whichever well-known scholar he likes, just as it is not necessary for him to undertake Ijtihād in regards to locating evidence…
Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad al-Ghazzālī (died 505 A.H.) said (Al-Mustaṣfā, 2/390-391, al-Maṭbaʿah al-Amīriyyah Cairo, 1st edition, 1324 A.H.): If there is only one jurist in the city, the layman would [de facto] refer [only] to him. If there are a number [of them], he may ask whomsoever he wishes: it is not necessary to refer to the most knowledgeable, as was the case in the time of the Companions, where laymen used to ask [both] the lesser and the superior [jurist], and no interdiction was placed on the people from asking anyone other than from Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and the other caliphs… If two jurists differ in front of him with regards to a ruling, he should refer back to them if they are equal [in knowledge and piety] and should say, “Your rulings are conflicting, and you are both equal in my eyes, so what is binding on me?” If they give him a choice, he would have a choice; if they agree upon the safer position or a specific [ruling], he should [act accordingly]; if they insist upon disagreement, the only option is that he has a choice…
Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn bin Masʿūd bin 'l-Farrā' al-Baghawī (died 516 A.H.) said (Al-Tahdhīb, 1/131, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.): If the Ijtihād of two scholars differs in front of a layman, he should take the opinion of the most knowledgeable in the law. If they are equal, [or] the one who is the most knowledgeable in law is not clear [to him], he should take the stricter position out of safety.
Muḥammad bin ʿUmar bin 'l-Ḥusayn al-Rāzī (died 606 A.H.) said (Al-Maḥṣūl, 6/81, Mu'assasat 'l-Risālah Beirut, 3rd edition, 1418 A.H.): If [the Mujtahids] differ, a group said that he must undertake Ijtihād to ascertain the most knowledgeable and the most pious, because that is the method for his belief to be strengthened, [and] is tantamount to the strengthening of the belief of a Mujtahid [who undertakes Ijtihād to ascertain the strongest of evidences]. Others said he does not have to undertake this Ijtihād, because scholars of all eras have not condemned laymen for abandoning the vetting process vis-à-vis the situation of scholars [in terms of superiority in knowledge and piety].
Abū 'l-Qāsim ʿAbd 'l-Karīm bin Muḥammad al-Rāfiʿī (died 623 A.H.) said (Al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr, 12/427, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1417 A.H.): If he follows a Mujtahid in some issues, and another in other issues, and the Mujtahids are equal according to him [as per the opinion of Ibn 'l-Ṣabbāgh] – or let us say he would have a choice – then what the practice of the ancients necessitates is that of [its] permissibility, as they used to ask [one scholar] at times [and another at other times] without any condemnation.
Regarding Ibn Abī 'l-Dam Ibrāhīm bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAbd 'l-Munʿim al-Hamdānī (died 642 A.H.), al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.) said in his Khādim 'l-Rāfiʿī Wa-'l-Rawḍah (taken from al-ʿIqd al-Farīd Fī Aḥkām 'l-Taqlīd by al-Samhūdī (died 911 A.H.), pg. 108, Dār 'l-Minhāj Jeddah, 1st edition, 1432 A.H.): This whole difference [of opinion] is for Mujtahids. As for laymen who are followers in legal rulings, they are not intended by this discourse, as they have no school which they could stand on. Their only obligation, when a situation befalls, is to follow. Whichever person qualified to pass rulings gives them an edict, they must accept his statement. [As for t]heir ascription to the schools[, it is] purely dogmatic.
Regarding ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿUmar al-Bayḍāwī (died 685 A.H.), Ibn Imām 'l-Kāmiliyyah (died 874 A.H.) said (Taysīr 'l-Wuṣūl Ilā Minhāj 'l-Uṣūl, 6/343, Dār 'l-Fārūq al-Ḥadīthah Cairo, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.): It is learned from [al-Bayḍāwī’s] passage that it is permissible to follow a lesser Mujtahid in spite of the ability to follow the superior [Mujtahid], and this is the famous position.
Al-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad bin Sharafshāh al-Astarābādhī (died 715 A.H.) said (Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar Muntahā 'l-Sūl Wa-'l-Amal – from the chapter of ʿĀmm to the end of the book, 2/984-985, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1422 A.H.): The preferred position according to the author is that it is permissible for a lay follower to follow the lesser scholar and abandon the superior scholar. Supporting us is the conviction that scholars used to pass rulings despite being known for being lesser in status, and this happened continuously for them – nobody condemned the following of the lesser scholar, therefore this becomes a consensus on its permissibility.
Abū 'l-Thanā' Maḥmūd bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Aḥmad al-Aṣfahānī (died 749 A.H.) said (Bayān 'l-Mukhtaṣar, 3/370, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.): The preferred position is it is permissible for a follower [of one school] to refer to another Mujtahid in another issue.
Al-Ījī Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-Ghaffār al-Muṭarrizī al-Shīrāzī (died 756 A.H.) said (Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar Muntahā 'l-Sūl Wa-'l-Amal, 3/644, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.): If one adheres to a specific school – even though it was not binding on him [in the first place] – like the school of Mālik or al-Shāfiʿī or others, then there are three opinions…
UZBEKISTAN
Regarding Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin ʿAlī bin Ismāʿīl al-Qaffāl al-Shāshī (died 365 A.H.), al-Ṭahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Ṭahṭāwī ʿAlā al-Durr al-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50-51): Abū ʿĀṣim Muḥammad bin Aḥmad al-ʿĀmirī [al-Ḥanafī – died around 400 A.H.] used to pass verdicts by the door of al-Qaffāl’s mosque. The [Shāfiʿī] muezzin [once] called for prayer, so [al-ʿĀmirī] left [his place] and entered the mosque. When al-Qaffāl saw him, he ordered the muezzin to double the prayer announcement [i.e. the Iqāmah, as per the Ḥanafī position] and put [al-ʿĀmirī] forward [to lead prayer]. He stepped forward [to lead], read Basmalah aloud and performed prayer on the Shāfiʿī method.
INDIA
Ṣafī 'l-Dīn al-Hindī Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm bin Muḥammad al-Armawī (died 725 A.H.) said (Nihāyat 'l-Wuṣūl Fī Dirāyat 'l-Uṣūl, 8/3908, al-Maktabah al-Tijāriyyah Makkah, 1st edition, 1416 A.H.): The layman has the capability to undertake Ijtihād in preferring one scholar over another, [but] not [in] rulings [per se]. This is because he can learn of the superior scholar via fame and indications… like a person who has a sick child and is not a doctor: if he gives him medicine based on his personal opinion, he would have transgressed and would be deemed to be careless; if he referred to a doctor, he would not be deemed to be careless; if in the city there are two doctors who differ in the medicine and he opposed the superior [doctor], he would be considered negligent…
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Mulaybārī (died 987 A.H.) said (Fatḥ 'l-Muʿīn Bi-Sharḥ Qurrat 'l-ʿAyn Bi-Muhimmāt 'l-Din, pg. 223, Markaz Tawʿiyat 'l-Fiqh al-Islāmī, Hyderabad Deccan, 2nd edition, 1424 A.H.):When a layman sticks to a school, he must stay in accordance with it. [If he has not done so already], he must adopt a specific school out of the Four, not any other. He may then switch to another school even if he has acted on the first, [either] in totality, or [just] in some issues with the condition that he does not continuously search for dispensations…
Abū Bakr bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad Shihāb 'l-Dīn al-ʿAlawī al-Ḥusaynī (died 1341 A.H.) said (Al-Tiryāq al-Nāfiʿ Bi-Īḍāḥ Wa-Takmīl Masā'il Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, 2/205, Maṭbaʿat Majlis Dā'irat 'l-Maʿārif al-Niẓāmiyyah Hyderabad, 1st edition, 1317 A.H.): The third scenario is that another situation other than the previous situation arises for him. The most correct is that it is permissible to ask another scholar other than the one he asked in the previous situation.
Abū 'l-Saʿādāt Aḥmad bin ʿAlī al-Mulaybārī (died 1374 A.H.) summarised and agreed with Muḥammad bin Sulaymān al-Kurdī al-Madanī’s (died 1194 A.H.) conclusions. (See al-ʿAwā'id al-Dīniyyah Fī Talkhīṣ 'l-Fawā'id al-Madaniyyah Fī Bayān Man Yuftā Bi-Qawlih Min Muta'akhkhirī 'l-Sādah al-Shāfiʿiyyah, Dār 'l-Baṣā'ir Cairo, 1st edition, 1431 A.H.)
Comment