www.masud.co.uk > Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Why Does One Have to Follow a Madhhab?

©Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1995

Buti: “What is your method for understanding the rulings of Allah? Do you take
them from the Qur’an and sunna, or from the Imams of ijtihad?” 


  
Salafi: “I examine the positions of the Imams and their
evidences for
them, and then take the closest of them to the evidence of the
Qur’an
and Sunna.” 

Buti: “You have five thousand Syrian pounds that you have saved for six months.
You then buy merchandise and begin trading with it. When do you
pay zakat
on the merchandise, after six months, or after one year?” 

Salafi: [He thought, and said,] “Your question implies you believe zakat should be
paid on business capital.” 

Buti: “I am just asking. You should answer in your own way. Here in front of
you is a library containing books of Qur’anic exegesis, hadith,
and the
works of the mujtahid Imams.” 

Salafi: [He reflected for a moment, then said,] “Brother, this is din, and not simple
matter. One could answer from the top of one’s head, but it
would require
thought, research, and study; all of which take time. And we
have come
to discuss something else.” 

Buti: I dropped the question and said, “All right. Is it obligatory for every
Muslim to examine the evidences for the positions of the Imams,
and adopt
the closest of them to the Qur’an and Sunna?” 

Salafi: “Yes.” 

Buti: “This means that all people possess the same capacity for ijtihad
that the Imams of the madhhabs have; or even greater, since
without a
doubt, anyone who can judge the positions of the Imams and
evaluate them
according to the measure of the Qur’an and sunna must know more
than all
of them.” 

Salafi: He said, “In reality, people are of three categories: the muqallid
or ‘follower of qualified scholarship without knowing the
primary textual
evidence (of Qur’an and hadith)’; the muttabi‘, or
‘follower of
primary textual evidence’; and the mujtahid, or scholar
who can
deduce rulings directly from the primary textual evidence (ijtihad).

He who compares between madhhabs and chooses the closest of them
to the
Qur’an is a muttabi‘, a follower of primary textual
evidence, which
is an intermediate degree between following scholarship (taqlid)

and deducing rulings from primary texts (ijtihad).” 

Buti: “Then what is the follower of scholarship (muqallid) obliged to
do?” 

Salafi: “To follow the mujtahid he agrees with.” 

Buti: “Is there any difficulty in his following one of them, adhering to him,
and not changing?” 

Salafi: “Yes there is. It is unlawful (haram).” 

Buti: “What is the proof that it is unlawful?” 

Salafi: “The proof is that he is obliging himself to do something Allah Mighty and
Majestic has not obligated him to.” 

Buti: I said, “Which of the seven canonical readings (qira’at) do you
recite the Qur’an in?” 

Salafi: “That of Hafs.” 

Buti: “Do you recite only in it, or in a different canonical reading each day.” 

Salafi: “No, I recite only in it.” 

Buti: “Why do you read only it when Allah Mighty and Majestic has not obliged
you to do anything except to recite the Qur’an as it has been
conveyed—with
the total certainty of tawatur (being conveyed by witnesses so
numerous
at every stage of transmission that their sheer numbers obviate
the possibility
of forgery or alteration), from the Prophet (Allah bless him and
give
him peace)?” 

Salafi: “Because I have not had a opportunity to study other canonical readings, or recite
the Qur’an except in this way.” 

Buti: “But the individual who learns the fiqh of the Shafi‘i school—he too has
not been able to study other madhhabs or had the opportunity to
understand
the rules of his religion except from this Imam. So if you say
that he
must know all the ijtihads of the Imams so as to go by
all of them,
it follows that you too must learn all the canonical readings so
as to
recite in all of them. And if you excuse yourself because you
cannot,
you should excuse him also. In any case, what I say is: where
did you
get that it is obligatory for a follower of scholarship (muqallid)

to keep changing from one madhhab to another, when Allah has not
obliged
him to? That is, just as he is not obliged to adhere to a
particular madhhab,
neither is he obliged to keep changing.” 

Salafi: “What is unlawful for him is adhering to one while believing that Allah has
commanded him to do so.” 

Buti: “That is something else, and is true without a doubt and without any disagreement
among scholars. But is there any problem with his following a
particular
mujtahid, knowing that Allah has not obliged him to do that?” 

Salafi: “There is no problem.” 

Buti: [Al-Khajnadi’s] al-Karras, which you teach from, contradicts you.
It says this is unlawful, in some places actually asserting that
someone
who adheres to a particular Imam and no other is an unbeliever
(kafir).” 

Salafi: He said, “Where?” and then began looking at the Karras, considering
its texts and expressions, reflecting on the words of the author
“Whoever
follows one of them in particular in all questions is a blind,
imitating,
mistaken bigot, and is “among those who have divided their
religion and
are parties” [Qur’an 30:32]. He said, “By follows, he means
someone who
believes it legally obligatory for him to do so. The wording is a
little
incomplete.”  
  
Buti: I said, “What evidence is there that that’s what he
meant? Why
don’t you just say the author was mistaken?” 

Salafi: He insisted that the expression was correct, that it should be understood
as containing an unexpressed condition [i.e. “provided one
believes it
is legally obligatory”], and he exonerated the writer from any
mistake
in it. 

Buti: I said, “But interpreted in this fashion, the expression does not address
any opponent or have any significance. Not a single Muslim is
unaware
that following such and such a particular Imam is not legally
obligatory.
No Muslim does so except from his own free will and choice.” 

Salafi: “How should this be, when I hear from many common people and some scholars
that it is legally obligatory to follow one particular school,
and that
a person may not change to another?” 

Buti: “Name one person from the ordinary people or scholars who said that to
you.” 

 He said nothing, and seemed surprised that what I said could be true, and
kept repeating that he had thought that many people considered
it unlawful
to change from one madhhab to another. 

I said, “You won’t find anyone today who believes this misconception, though it
is related from the latter times of the Ottoman period that they
considered
a Hanafi changing from his own school to another to be an
enormity. And
without a doubt, if true, this was something that was complete
nonsense
from them; a blind, hateful bigotry.” 

 I then said, “Where did you get this distinction between the muqallid
“follower of scholarship” and the muttabi‘ “follower of
evidence”:
Is there a original, lexical distinction [in the Arabic
language], or
is it merely terminological?” 

Salafi: “There is a lexical difference.” 

Buti: I brought him lexicons with which to establish the lexical difference
between the two words, and he could not find anything. I then
said: “Abu
Bakr (Allah be well pleased with him) said to a desert Arab who
had objected
to the alotment for him agreed upon by the Muslims, ‘If the
Emigrants
accept, you are but followers’—using the word "followers" (tabi‘)

to mean ‘without any prerogative to consider, question, or
discuss.’”
(Similar to this is the word of Allah Most High, “When those who
were
followed (uttubi‘u) disown those those who followed (attaba‘u)

upon seeing the torment, and their relations are sundered”
(Qur’an 2:166),
which uses follow (ittiba‘) for the most basic blind
imitation).  

Salafi: He said, “Then let it be a technical difference: don’t I have a right to
establish a terminological usage?” 

Buti: “Of course. But this term of yours does not alter the facts. This person
you term a muttabi‘ (follower of scholarly evidence) will
either
be an expert in evidences and the means of textual deduction
from them,
in which case he is a mujtahid. Or, if not an expert or
unable
to deduce rulings from them, then he is muqallid
(follower of scholarly
conclusions). And if he is one of these on some questions, and
the other
on others, then he is a muqallid for some and a mujtahid

for others. In any case, it is an either-or distinction, and the
ruling
for each is clear and plain.” 

Salafi: He said, “The muttabi‘ is someone able to distinguish between scholarly
positions and the evidences for them, and to judge one to be
stronger
than others. This is a level different to merely accepting
scholarly conclusions. 

Buti: “If you mean,” I said, “by distinguishing between positions differentiating
them according to the strength or weakness of the evidence, this
is the
highest level of ijtihad. Are you personally able to do
this?” 

Salafi: “I do so as much as I can.” 

Buti: “I am aware,” I said, “that you give as a fatwas that a three fold
pronouncement of divorce on a single occasion only counts as one
time.
Did you check, before this fatwa of yours, the positions of the
Imams
and their evidences on this, then differentiate between them, so
to give
the fatwa accordingly? Now, ‘Uwaymir al-‘Ajlani
pronounced a three
fold divorce at one time in the presence of the Prophet (Allah
bless him
and give him peace) after he had made public imprecation against
her for
adultery (li‘an), saying, ‘If I retain her, O Messenger
of Allah,
I will have lied against her: she is [hereby] thrice divorced.’
What do
you know about this hadith and its relation to this question,
and its
bearing as evidence for the position of the scholarly majority
[that a
threefold divorce pronounced on a single occasion is legally
finalized
and binding] as opposed to the position of Ibn Taymiya [that a
threefold
divorce on a single occasion only counts as once]?” 

Salafi: “I did not know this hadith.” 

Buti: “Then how could you give a fatwa on this question that contradicts
what the four madhhabs unanimously concur upon, without even
knowing their
evidence, or how strong or weak it was? Here you are, discarding
the principle
you say you have enjoined on yourself and mean to enjoin on us,
the principle
of “following scholarly evidence (ittiba‘)” in the
meaning you
have terminologically adopted.” 

Salafi: “At the time I didn’t own enough books to review the positions of the Imams
and their evidence.” 

Buti: “Then what made you rush into giving a fatwa contravening the vast majority
of Muslims, when you hadn’t even seen any of their evidences?” 

Salafi: “What else could I do? I asked and I only had a limited amount of scholarly
resources.” 

Buti: “You could have done what all scholars and Imams have done; namely, say
“I didn’t know,” or told the questioner the postition of both
the four
madhhabs and the postion of those who contravene them; without
givng a
fatwa for either side. You could have done this, or rather, this
was what
was obligatory for you, especially since the poblem was not
personally
yours so as to force you to reach some solution or another. As
for your
giving a fatwa contradicting the consensus (ijma‘) of the
four
Imams without knowing—by your own admission—their evidences,
sufficing
yourself with the agreement in your heart for the evidences of
the opposition,
this is the very utmost of the kind of bigotry you accuse us
of.” 

Salafi: “I read the Imams’ opinions in [Nayl al-awtar, by] Shawkani, Subul
al-salam [by al-Amir al-San‘ani], and Fiqh al-sunna
by Sayyid
Sabiq.” 

Buti: These are the books of the opponents of the four Imams on this question.
All of them speak from one side of the question, mentioning the
proofs
that buttress their side. Would you be willing to judge one
litigant on
the basis of his words alone, and that of his witnesses and
relatives?” 

Salafi: I see nothing blameworthy in what I have done. I was obliged to give the
questioner an answer, and this was as much as I was able to
reach with
my understanding.” 

Buti: “You say you are a “follower of scholarly evidence (muttabi‘)”
and we should all be likewise. You have explained “following
evidence”
as reviewing the positions of all madhhabs, studying their
evidences,
and adopting the closest of them to the correct evidence—while
in doing
what you have done, you have discarded the principle completely.
You know
that the unanimous consensus of the four madhhabs is that a
threefold
pronouncement of divorce on one occasion counts as a three fold,
finalized
divorce, and you know that they have evidences for this that you
arae
unaware of, despite which you turn from their consensus to the
opinion
that your personal preference desires. Were you certain
beforehand that
the evidence of the four Imams deserved to be rejected?” 

Salafi: No; but I wasn’t aware of them, since I didn’t have any reference works on
them.” 

Buti: “Then why didn’t you wait? Why rush into it, when Allah never obligated
you to do anything of the sort? Was your not knowing the
evidences of
the scholarly majority a proof tht Ibn Taymiya was right? Is the
bigotry
you wrongly accuse us of anything besides this?” 

Salafi: “I read evidences in the books available to me that convinced me. Allah has
not enjoined me to do more than that.” 

Buti: “If a Muslim sees a proof for something in a the books he reads, is that
a sufficient reason to disregard the madhhabs that contradict
his understanding,
even if he doesn’t know their evidences?” 

Salafi: “It is sufficient.” 

Buti: “A young man, newly religious, without any Islamic education, reads the
word of Allah Most High “To Allah belongs the place where the
sun rises
and where it sets: wherever you turn, there is the countenance
of Allah.
Verily, Allah is the All-encompassing, the All-knowing (Qur’an
2:115),
and gathers from it that a Muslim may face any direction he
wishes in
his prescribed prayers, as the ostensive purport of the verse
implies.
But he has heard that the four Imams unanimously concur upon the
necessity
of his facing towards the Kaaba, and he knows they have
evidences for
it that he is unaware of. What should he do when he wants to
pray? Should
he follow his conviction from the evidence available to him, or
follow
the Imam who unanimously concur on the contrary of what he has
understood?” 

Salafi: “He should follow his conviction.” 

Buti: “And pray towards the east for example. And his prayer would be legally
valid?” 

Salafi: “Yes. He is morally responsible for following his personal conviction.” 

Buti: “What if his personal conviction leads him to believe there is no harm
in making love to his neighbor’s wife, or to fill his belly with
wine,
or wrongfully take others’ property: will all this be mitigated
in Allah’s
reckoning by “personal conviction”? 

Salafi: [He was silent for a moment, then said,] “Anyway, the examples you ask about
are all fantasies that do not occur.” 

Buti: “They are not fantasies; how often the like of them occurs, or even stranger.
A young man without any knowledge of Islam, its Book, its sunna,
who happens
to hear or read this verse by chance, and understands from it
what any
Arab would from its owtward purport, that there is no harm in
someone
praying facing any direction he wants—despite seeing people’s
facing towards
the Kaaba rather than any other direction. This is an ordinary
matter,
theoretically and practically, as long as there are those among
Muslims
who don’t know a thing about Islam. In any event, you have
pronounced
upon this example—imaginary or real—a judgement that is not
imaginary,
and have judged “personal conviction” to be the decisive
criterion in
any event. This contradicts your differentiating people into
three groups:
followers of scholars without knowing their evidence (muqallidin),

followers of scholars’ evidence (muttabi‘in), and mujtahids.” 

Salafi: “Such a person is obliged to investigate. Didn’t he read any hadith, or any
other Qur’anic verse?” 

Buti: He didn’t have any reference works available to him, just as you didn’t
have any when you gave your fatwa on the question of
[threefold]
divorce. And he was unable to read anything other than this
verse connected
with facing the qibla and its obligatory character. Do
you still
insist that he must follow his personal conviction and disregard
the Imams’
consensus?” 

Salafi: “Yes. If he is unable to evaluate and investigate further, he is excused, and
it is enough for him to rely on the conclusions his evaluation
and investigation
lead him to.” 

Buti: “I intend to publish these remarks as yours. They are dangerous, and strange.” 

Salafi: “Publish whatever you want. I’m not afraid.” 

Buti: “How should you be afraid of me, when you are not afraid of Allah Mighty
and Majestic, utterly discarding by these words the word of
Allah Mighty
and Majestic [in Sura al-Nahl] ‘Ask those who recall if
you know
not’ (Qur’an 16:43).” 

Salafi: “My brother,” he said, “These Imams are not divinely protected from error
(ma‘sum). As for the Quranic verse that this person
followed [in
praying any direction], it is the word of Him Who Is Protected
from All
Error, may His glory be exalted. How should he leave the
divinely protected
and attach himself to the tail of the non-divinely-protected?” 

Buti: “Good man, what is divinely protected from error is the true meaning that
Allah intended by saying, “To Allah belongs the place where the
sun rises
and where it sets . . .”—not the understanding of the young man
who is
as far as can be from knowing Islam, its rulings, and the nature
of its
Qur’an. That is to say, the comparison I am asking you to make
is between
two understandings: the understanding of this ignorant youth,
and the
understanding of the mujtahid Imams, neither of which is
divinely
protected from error, but one of which is rooted in ignorance
and superficiality,
and the other of which is rooted in investigation, knowledge,
and accuracy.” 

Salafi: “Allah does not make him responsible for more than his effort can do.” 

Buti: “Then answer me this question. A man has a child who suffers from some
infections, and is under the care of all the doctors in town,
who agree
he should have a certain medicine, and warn his father against
giving
him an injection of penicillin, and that if he does, he will be
exposing
the child’s life to destruction. Now, the father knows from
having read
a medical publication that penicillin helps in cases of
infection. So
he relies on his own knowledge about it, disregards the advice
of the
doctors since he doesn’t know the proof for what they say, and
employing
instead his own personal conviction, treats the child with a
penicillin
injection, and thereafter the child dies. Should such a person
be tried,
and is he guilty of a wrong for what he did, or not?” 

Salafi: [He thought for a moment and then said,] “This is not the same as that.” 

Buti: “It is exactly the same. The father has heard the unanimous judgement
of the doctors, just as the young man has heard the unanimous
judgement
of the Imams. One has followed a single text he read in a
medical publication,
the other has followed a single text he has read in the Book of
Allah
Mighty and and Majestic. This one has gone by personal
conviction, and
so has that.” 

Salafi: “Brother, the Qur’an is light. Light. In its clarity as evidence, is light like
any other words?” 

Buti: “And the light of the Qur’an is reflected by anyone who looks into it
or recites it, such that he understands it as light, as Allah
meant it?
Then what is the difference between those who recall [Qur’an
16:43] and
anyone else, as long as all partake of this light? Rather, the
two above
examples are comparable, there is no difference between them at
all; you
must answer me: does the person investigating—in each of the two
examples—follow
his personal conviction, or does he follow and imitate
specialists?” 

Salafi: “Personal conviction is the basis.” 

Buti: “He used personal conviction, and it resulted in the death of the child.
Does this entail any responsibility, moral or legal?” 

Salafi: “It doesn’t entail any responsibility at all.” 
  
Buti: I said, “Then let us end the investigation and
discussion on
this last remark of yours, since it closes the way to any common
ground
between you and me on which we can base a discussion. It is
sufficient
that with this bizarre answer of yours, you have departed from
the consensus
of the entire Islamic religion. By Allah, there is no meaning on
the face
of the earth for disgusting bigotry if it is not what you people
have”
(al-Lamadhhabiyya (b01), 99–108). 

Buti concludes the story by saying:  
I do not know then, why these people don’t just let us be, to
use our
own “personal conviction” that someone ignorant of the rules of
religion
and the proofs for them must adhere to one of the mujtahid
Imams, imitating
him because of the latter’s being more aware than himself of the
Book
of Allah and sunna of His messenger. Whatever the mistake in
this opinion
in their view let it be given the general amnesty of “personal
conviction.”
like the example of him who turns his back to the qibla and is
his prayer
is valid, or him who kills a child and the killing is “ijtihad”

and “medical treatment” (ibid. 108).

www.masud.co.uk | More by same Author