Estimated Reading Time: 33 minutes
In Islamic tradition, the understanding of madhhabs and fiqh forms the backbone of religious practice and legal interpretation. However, there are widespread misconceptions and misunderstandings about these concepts, especially among English-speaking audiences. It is crucial to clarify these misconceptions and emphasize the scholarly importance of adhering to a madhhab (school of thought) in Islam.
A madhhab, derived from the Arabic root word Dhahaba (meaning "to go"), literally translates to a path or a way of going. Historically, it represented the position of an outstanding scholar, formulated based on the foundational sources of Islamic law, and shaped by a comprehensive set of jurisprudential principles. Over time, it came to signify not only the opinions of that scholar but also the collective views of his students and followers. On the other hand, Fiqh is defined by scholars like ibn Hazm as the knowledge of Islamic rulings derived from the Qur'an and the Hadith, encompassing the abrogating and abrogated texts, the consensus of scholars, and the methodology of referring differences back to the Qur'an and Sunnah.
This introduction aims to guide readers through the historical evolution of madhhabs in Islam, debunk common misconceptions, and highlight the essential role that adherence to a madhhab plays in both the lives of laypersons and students of knowledge. By exploring the stages of development of madhhabs, from their origins among the Salaf to their current role in Islamic jurisprudence, we can better appreciate their foundational role in ensuring the continuity and integrity of Islamic legal practice.
Divided into ten sections, this guide offers an exploration of the significance, evolution, and essential role of madhhabs in Islamic jurisprudence:
In this journey, we will also address the misconceptions surrounding the obligation of following a madhhab, the historical context in which madhhabs developed, and the nuanced scholarly opinions on the subject. This exploration will ultimately underscore the critical need for structured learning within a madhhab framework, which is deeply rooted in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and vital for preserving the proper understanding and application of Islamic law.
Let’s first understand the concepts:
Madhhab [مذهب] is derived from the verb Dhahaba [ذهب] which means to go. Madhhab literally means a way of going or simply a path. The position of an outstanding scholar on a particular point was also referred to as his madhhab (the path of his ideas or his opinion). Eventually, it was used to refer to the sum total of a scholar’s opinions, whether legal or philosophical. Later it was used to denote, not only the scholar’s opinion, but also that of his students and followers. (cf. Dr. Bilal Philips, The Evolution of Fiqh, p. 6)
Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The definition of fiqh is: knowledge of the rulings of Shari'ah as derived from the Qur’an and the words of the one who was sent with it (i.e. the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم), for these rulings can only be taken from him. What is implied by this definition is: knowledge of the rulings of the Qur’an, and what abrogates and what is abrogated of it (ناسخها ومنسوخها); and knowledge of the rulings in the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), what abrogates and what is abrogated of it, and what is soundly narrated of it and what is not; and knowledge of the matters concerning which there was consensus among the scholars and what they differed about; and knowledge of how to refer differences of opinion to the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This is what is meant by having knowledge of the rulings of Shari'ah." End quote from [كتاب الإحكام في أصول الأحكام] (5/127).
Regarding madhhabs, they have passed through six stages:
In recent times, I've observed many English-speaking students, often referred to as public speakers, discussing the ruling on adhering to a Madhhab (school of thought). A significant number of them, particularly those who claim to follow the righteous predecessors (Salaf), mistakenly assert that adhering to a madhhab is not obligatory. They argue that it is only beneficial for students of knowledge who wish to systematically study Fiqh, and suggest that laypeople should strictly adhere to the Qur'an and Sunnah, following the fatwa or opinion of a scholar directly. These arguments, insha’Allah, which I will address, lack a strong foundation in Shari'ah.
When examining the history and development of madhhabs, some speakers either imply that no Madhhab existed among the Sahaabah after the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) time or rhetorically question which madhhab the Prophet or the first caliphs (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali) followed. Such views overlook the well-documented fact that madhhabs did indeed exist among the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) and played a significant role in the transmission and application of Islamic knowledge.
One common misconception is that following a madhhab today is equivalent to the historical instances where some followers excessively prioritized their imam's views, to the extent of neglecting the Prophet’s teachings (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Critics often erroneously perceive Madhhabs as lacking a firm foundation in the Qur'an and Sunnah. This misunderstanding leads to the misguided belief that adhering to a madhhab is akin to establishing a new school of thought, embodied by the simplistic slogan, "we follow only the Qur'an and Sunnah." In reality, madhhabs are deeply rooted in these primary sources of Islamic legislation.
Some individuals trivialize madhhabs and fiqh, reducing them to mere collections of personal opinions, akin to subjective preferences such as how one might prefer their tea with varying amounts of sugar. This comparison diminishes the substantial principles that the imams derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Such allegations are not only baseless but also demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the role of madhhabs in preserving and applying Islamic law.
While it is acceptable to hold the view that adhering to a madhhab is not obligatory, it is crucial to maintain respect for those who do. However, using this opinion to create discord within the Muslim community is problematic. Ironically, many scholars themselves adhere to a madhhab, even if they do not consider it obligatory. Their intention is not to sow division, but rather to uphold the integrity of Islamic scholarship. Some groups, particularly those labeled as pseudo-Salafis, have been accused of forming what some call a "fifth madhhab." While there may be valid critiques of pseudo-Salafism, the claim that they have established a new madhhab is unfounded.
It is essential to recognize that those who oppose madhhabs, and those who allege that pseudo-Salafis have formed a new madhhab, are often influenced by misguided sects, despite their claims to adhere to the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah.
In conclusion, adhering to a madhhab is important for both laypersons and students of knowledge. While students of knowledge engage with the deeper intricacies of fiqh within a madhhab, laypersons typically focus on its foundational teachings, from introductory to basic levels. Understanding and acknowledging this distinction is crucial for maintaining unity and preserving the rich legacy of Islamic jurisprudence.
Scholars have said: At the time of the Revelation, the Muslims learned the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) through the Ayat of the Qur’an and the ahaadeeth of his Sunnah. Hence there were no differences of opinion among them except with regard to some minor issues. If that happened, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would explain to them what was correct.
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) died and the Sahaabah spread out to various regions to teach the people Islam, there appeared some differences with regard to some matters of fiqh which arose at different times and in different places. These differences were due to a number of reasons, which we will sum up here from the words of the scholars:
(Source)
The first stage, in relation to madhhabs among the Salaf, was notably mentioned by the esteemed scholar 'Ali ibn al-Madini. Renowned for his proficiency in the science of ‘Ilal [علل], he is even considered superior to imam al-Bukhaari in this specific field. Imam al-Bukhaari himself admitted that he felt somewhat lacking in terms of knowledge compared to ibn al-Madini.
(In the specific terminology of the scholars of hadith, 'Illah [علة] refers to a subtle, hidden flaw that affects the authenticity of a hadith, even though it may appear sound on the surface.)
Although imam al-Bukhaari had many teachers and excelled in knowledge to the point that he surpassed many of his former teachers, this was not the case with imam ibn al-Madini. Ibn al-Madini was of a great caliber in this particular field of knowledge. In ibn al-Madini's book [علل الحديث ومعرفة الرجال والتاريخ], specifically from pages 140 to 145, he clearly explains that madhhabs existed among the Salaf, and there were even preferences for specific madhhabs. To cite from few statements of the book:
‘Ali said: Among the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) there were only three who had followers who would issue fatwas based on their opinions in fiqh: ‘Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Zayd ibn Thaabit, and ibn ‘Abbaas. Each of these men had followers who would stand by their words and issue fatwas to the people.
The followers of ‘Abdullah who would read in his qiraa’ah and issue fatwas based on his words and follow his school of thought were: Alqamah ibn Qays, al-Aswad ibn Yazeed, Masrooq ibn al-Ajda', ‘Abeedah as-Salmaani, ‘Amr ibn Shurahbeel, and Haarith ibn Qays - these six. Ibraheem an-Nakha’i counted them and said: The followers of ‘Abdullah who would teach people in his qiraa’ah and issue fatwas were six: Alqamah, al-Aswad, Shurooq... counting these six.
The most knowledgeable of the people of Kufah about the followers of ‘Abdullah, their method [طريقتهم], and their madhhab were Ibraheem and ash-Sha'bi. However, ash-Sha'bi followed the madhhab of Masrooq; he would take from ‘Ali, the people of Madinah, and others. And Ibraheem would follow the madhhab of his companions; these followers of ‘Abdullah.
The principles of jurisprudence are not a recent development, and imam ash-Shaafi'ee (may Allah have mercy upon him) was not the first to introduce them. These principles were known long before him, as evident from the practices of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them). Indeed, it was Imam ash-Shaafi'ee who first codified these principles in written form. (Source) (Source)
You might wonder about the significance of this point. Consider the narrations from 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him), in which he asked a storyteller if he was aware of [الناسخ والمنسوخ], that is, the matters of what abrogates and what is abrogated. The person admitted his ignorance of these matters. 'Ali ibn Abi Talib then told him that he had perished and caused others to perish, implying that he was misguided and misguiding others.
Abu 'Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Salaam al-Harawi (224H) said in “Chapter: The Merit of the Knowledge of Abrogating and Abrogated Ayat in the Qur’an, and the Ta’weel of Abrogation in Revelation and al-Aathaar”: Narrated to us by ‘Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahdi who said: Sufyan narrated to us, from Abu al-Husayn, from Abu Abdur-Rahman as-Sulami, that ‘Ali ibn ‘Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) passed by a story teller who was narrating stories, and he asked, "Do you know the abrogating and the abrogated (Ayat of the Qur’an)?" He replied, "No." ‘Ali said: "You have perished and caused others to perish."). (الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن العزيز)
The difference between the Sahaabah's understanding of the principles of jurisprudence and what imam ash-Shaafi'ee wrote lies in the fact that the Sahaabah innately knew these principles as they were integral to the Arabic language. Furthermore, they were scholars in their own right, possessing the wisest and sharpest of minds, as they were the best of people after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). In other words, the principles of jurisprudence were a part of their innate nature (fitrah). By the time of imam ash-Shaafi’ee, the need to formally teach this knowledge had become critical, especially considering that, generally speaking, knowledge decreases over time. Systematic teaching and presentation became necessary, hence the need for written works. The significance and importance of the Arabic language cannot be overstated, as a lack of knowledge in it can lead to misguidance.
Note that 'an-Naasikh wal-Mansookh,' which refers to the matters of what abrogates and what is abrogated, is a topic studied in the principles of jurisprudence. There is also a reason why we refer to 'fuqahaa',' meaning scholars of jurisprudence: they are the ones qualified to extrapolate and explain hadith and its implications. For laypeople to attempt extrapolation or even to insinuate meanings from these texts without scholarly reference or explanation could lead to misguidance.
Al-Qayrawani reported that Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah (may Allah have mercy upon him) said: “The hadith cause misguidance, except for the fuqahaa'.” (1/118 الجامع في السنن والآداب والمغازي والتاريخ)
Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani who reported this statement said: "He (Sufyan) intends that people might take something in its apparent meaning when, in fact, it is interpreted in the light of another hadith or some evidence which remains hidden to them; or it may consist in discarded evidence due to some other (abrogating) evidence. None can meet the responsibility of knowing this except those who deepened their learning and obtained jurisprudence (fiqh)."
Let us understand the summary of how the Sahaabah practiced the principles of jurisprudence, which are exemplified by all the imams and have become the basis of their approaches in their respective madhhabs. It comprises four components, as scholars have identified:
Unfortunately, there is a common misconception among laypeople that the rulings of Islamic scholars reflect their personal desires. However, these scholars are actually conveying their understanding of Allah's will as expressed in His Shari'ah. In English, the four components of these rulings are: 1) the ruling itself, 2) the evidence supporting it, 3) the indication, and 4) the scholar who derives the ruling from the evidence. Each of these components is elaborately discussed in the books of Usool al-Fiqh.
There's a misunderstanding that the principles of jurisprudence pertain solely to jurisprudence because of the term "fiqh". In reality, these principles encompass all the sciences of Shari'ah, including tafseer, hadith science, and even creed. For a deeper understanding of the impact of the principles of jurisprudence on 'aqeedah, I can refer you to these two books:
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said: "The purpose of the principles of jurisprudence is for the learner to understand the intentions of Allah and His Messenger through the Qur'an and the Sunnah." (Source)
This underscores the importance and status of scholars in Islam. While we recognize them as fallible humans, this does not equate to the extremes of either undermining adherence to a madhhab or falsely elevating scholars to the status of prophets or deities.
Addressing false arguments: Some laypeople attempt to undermine the madhhab by stating that the imams are mere humans like us. However, this argument misses the point. No scholar claims infallibility; rather, the foundations, primary principles, and sources of legislation are uncontested by all the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah. The reasons for differences in fiqh are often due to varying levels of knowledge in ahaadeeth and narrations of the Sahaabah among scholars.
Common sense dictates that professions requiring specialized expertise, acquired through years of study, hold more weight in their field than the opinions of laypeople. If this is respected in worldly matters, why do some people feel emboldened to speak about matters of the Deen of Allah without similar expertise? Being a Muslim does not automatically qualify one to opine on religious matters, nor does it justify conjecture. It is the knowledgeable and righteous scholars whose words carry weight. Ash-Shaatibi (may Allah have mercy upon him) said in [الاعتصام] (1/354): "There is no difference of opinion concerning the fact that the agreement of the common folk is of no significance." 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "Knowledge is a dot, which the ignorant have multiplied." [كشف الخفاء] (67 / 2).
I have already covered what qualifies a scholar here:
There are primarily three scholarly opinions, of which only two are considered respectable. One of these two is ultimately correct, while the third opinion is deemed invalid and gravely erroneous. I have already addressed the obligation to follow one particular madhhab. The second opinion is an ijtihaadi position held by some scholars. This opinion is often either indirectly followed or directly cited as evidence, supporting the permissibility of following a madhhab but not deeming it obligatory. The third, and false, opinion asserts that following a madhhab is forbidden.
There exists a misunderstanding about the notions of "majority" and "minority" positions. (Source) (Source) Some mistakenly believe that these terms refer to the contemporary number of scholars expressing a view. For example, many in the Arabian Peninsula argue that following a madhhab is permissible but not obligatory, leading some to incorrectly assume this to be the majority stance. The fact that numerous contemporary scholars hold a particular view does not inherently make it the majority position. "Majority" in this context also refers to the prevailing stance across the madhhabs. To assert that following a madhhab is obligatory is not to suggest any form of fanaticism or to prioritize a scholarly view over the teachings of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). There is also a misunderstanding, and some mistakenly believe that madhhabs are unrelated to the Qur'an and Sunnah. Surprisingly, even some students of knowledge hold this misconception when they argue against following a madhhab. Ahlus-Sunnah scholars are known to quote a true statement, even if it was said by an innovator: 'اللامذهبية قنطرة اللادينية', which means 'being anti-madhhab is a bridge to being anti-Deen.' This is because the arguments used against madhhab are strikingly similar to those used by secularists today against Islam.
Only a handful of scholars opined that it’s forbidden to follow a madhhab. The misconception revolves around the terms "taqleed" and "ijtihaad." Some groups believe that taqleed is reserved solely for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). They argue that adhering to a madhhab based on taqleed contradicts this notion. While the term is often loosely translated as 'blind following,' its direct translation means 'imitating'. This misunderstanding arises from the misinterpretation of these terms. Generally speaking, a muqallid is someone who is not a scholar. Thus, they rely on a trustworthy scholar to facilitate knowledge, lacking the means or understanding of the nuances of jurisprudence, such as discerning what is abrogated and what is not. Consequently, one is either a muqallid or a mujtahid. Of course, there are nuances; a student of knowledge is also classified as a muqallid, much like a layperson. One ceases to be a student of knowledge upon becoming a scholar, but even a scholar can be a mujtahid in the madhhab. A 'mujtahid mutlaq' has mastered the sciences of Shari'ah and the myriad views of scholars, making them independent of adhering to any madhhab. To reiterate, this is a simplistic explanation, and each point could be elaborated upon in more depth. However, I hope the core concepts are clear. The issue on whether it's obligatory to follow a madhhab stems from misunderstandings of taqleed and ijtihaad. This leads to individuals, perhaps influenced by fatawa or explanations from scholars like shaykh al-Albani or shaykh Muqbil, having skewed perceptions of what it means to be a muqallid. This matter is more nuanced than they present. A similar argument is made by the Ahl-e-Hadith group. They argue against the necessity of following a madhhab, often echoing the Dhaahiriyyah. This leads them to present anti-madhhab evidence, frequently referencing ibn Hazm. However, as discussed in my previous articles, this is a third opinion with no authoritative weight; it's an errant view that should be dismissed respectfully. This will become clearer in the ensuing explanations. Insha'Allah.
You might then wonder why I quoted ibn Hazm before, despite him being a Dhaahiri. What most people don't understand is that there is no contradiction in quoting a truthful statement, even if you might disagree with the foundations or premises of the scholars' positions. This is about being fair and respecting scholars; it doesn’t mean you agree with every single detail of their positions. It’s one thing to agree on the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. In short, the basis of any disagreement should also be grounded on a scholarly basis.
The ijtihaadi opinion that it’s only permissible and not obligatory, to follow a madhhab. This is actually a minority position of the scholars. One of the prominent figures includes ibn Taymiyyah. He stated that it's permissible to follow one of the four madhhabs. This opinion is referenced by his student ‘Umar ibn ‘Ali al-Bazzaar in his book [الأعلام العلية في مناقب شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية]:
The rest of the sciences, I asked him about the reason for this, and sought from him the composition of a text in jurisprudence that combines his choices and preferences, to serve as a pillar in issuing fatwas. He said to me, the meaning of which is: "The matter of the branches [الفروع] is close [i.e. easy], so if a Muslim follows (i.e., taqleed) on one of the scholars, it is permissible for him to act according to his statement, as long as he is not certain of his error."
He then went on to explain his reasoning as to why he focused on 'aqeedah matters [أصول الدين].
Many of those who deem it permissible are influenced by the stance of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, who opined that it's permissible and not obligatory. Although this is a respectable opinion, it's not the correct stance and remains a minority view.
We certainly hold ibn Taymiyyah in high regard. However, for secondary issues beyond the foundational beliefs we all agree on, he isn't the only scholar to express an opinion that diverges from the recognized scholarly opinions. Regrettably, there's a prevalent notion that, because he commented, deliberated, or refuted nearly every topic, he is the only one-go-to scholar. In reality, there are matters where his stance is based on his own scholarly, albeit respectable, ijtihaad. Moreover, some of his methods, like his refutations, are not necessarily reflective of the Salaf's approach in their respective times or the manner in which they tackled certain issues. My emphasis here is on secondary branches of issues; I clarify this to ensure you don't misconstrue my intent as trying to diminish his esteemed position as a scholar. Ibn Taymiyyah himself adhered to the madhhab of imam Ahmad. Across all his works, even though he opined that following a madhhab was permissible, the importance he accorded to adhering to a madhhab is so evident that it's impossible to overlook.
When I refer to 'scholarly opinions', I'm not alluding to the idea of multiple opinions, as many laypeople often assume. Nor am I suggesting that these alleged 'multiple opinions' are available for anyone to pick and choose based on their personal preferences, or that one can merely select the easiest scholarly stance. In most cases, there are primarily two scholarly viewpoints on a given issue, and the truth lies in only one of them, as there can't be "multiple truths". A beginner or even a second-level student of knowledge will not encounter such differing opinions, and it's usually not appropriate at these early stages. Thus, as an individual, you shouldn't be preoccupied with varying views when you're only perusing introductory or first-level fiqh books. Occasionally, a scholar might mention two positions, then indicating which they believe to be the most accurate, but this won't be the case for every topic. It's vital to note that when a scholar references what is raajih (راجح), it typically reflects their own scholarly viewpoint and doesn't necessarily represent an entire madhhab or the prevailing stance across all madhhabs. Read:
Consequently, avoid making hasty conclusions, especially when studying introductory and first-level fiqh. Differences in opinion will be more thoroughly explored at the third level, so it's wise to avoid becoming sidetracked by tangential matters. Ashhab said, "I heard Maalik (may Allah have mercy on him) say: 'The truth is only one. Two differing statements cannot both be correct. The truth and the correct position are but one.'" Ashhab added, "Al-Layth says the same thing." Abu 'Umar said, "Differences (in opinions) are not a proof for anyone I know from the fuqahaa' of the Ummah, except for someone who has no insight, no knowledge with him, and his statement holds no weight." (Source) When a scholar indicates that there are differences of opinion on a specific matter, it usually pertains to two differing viewpoints. Sometimes, a scholar may find it challenging to determine the correct stance when both positions present compelling evidence. To be clear, I'm referring to nuanced branches of jurisprudence here, not foundational matters like whether one should pray three or five times a day. There's a principle that states [لا يجوز إحداث قول ثالث], which means, "It is not permissible to introduce a third opinion."
To give you an example of two differing opinions: When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came back from the campaign of al-Ahzaab, and Jibreel came to him and told him to go out to Bani Quraydhah, who had broken the treaty, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told his companions, “None of you should pray ‘Asr until he reaches Bani Quraydhah.” They set out from Madinah to Bani Quraydhah, and they were worried about missing the ‘Asr prayer. Some of them delayed the ‘Asr prayer until they reached Bani Quraydhah, and they prayed it after the time for the prayer had passed, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had said, “None of you should pray ‘Asr until he reaches Bani Quraydhah.” Others prayed ‘Asr on time, saying that all the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had meant was that they should hasten to go out (to Bani Quraydhah); he did not mean that they should delay the prayer. These are the ones who were correct, but the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not rebuke either of the two groups, and neither expressed enmity towards the other.
On this matter, shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah commented:
Thus, the first group clung to the general application of the statement, thereby including the scenario of missing [the prayer time] within this generality. The other group, however, had evidence strong enough to justify excluding this scenario from the generality, as the intent was the prompt action towards those besieging the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This issue is a well-known point of contention among fuqahaa': Should the generality be specified by Qiyaas? Despite this, those who prayed [salah] on the way indeed acted more correctly.
(Source)
Similarly, after commenting on the first group, al-Haafidh ibn Rajab stated that the other group interpreted the intent of the Prophet's statement (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to mean that they were to hasten to Banu Quraydhah during the remainder of the day. They noted that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not intend to delay the salah prayer beyond its time or to change the time of the Asr prayer that day; it remained as it was on other days. Then al-Haafidh noted, "This is the most apparent. And Allah knows best." He then continued to discuss another scholarly regarding whether every mujtahid is necessarily correct. (Source)
There is no implication here that every mujtahid is correct, but it indicates that a mujtahid, whether right or wrong, is not to be blamed for their ijtihaad. If correct, they receive double reward, and if mistaken, their mistake is overlooked, and they receive a reward for their effort.
As a side point to this, we can confidently assert that scholars who exercised ijtihaad, determining that it is permissible to follow a madhhab and not obligatory, are not to be blamed but are instead rewarded, even if they are mistaken. Al-Haafidh ibn Rajab then continued:
Those who use the hadith to argue that one who deliberately misses salah should make it up after its time are mistaken; for those who delayed the salah on that day did so based on acceptable Qiyaas, similar to those who are asleep or forgetful, and more so; for delaying based on sound interpretation is more likely to be excused.
Do keep in mind that ijtihaad and qiyaas are tasks undertaken only by scholars. Ordinary Muslims and those who may claim to be students do not possess the capability or knowledge required for such endeavors. That’s why a mujtahid is, by definition, an actual scholar.
To address another issue related to this topic, it concerns whether shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah is regarded as an absolute mujtahid. There are some scholarly tangential discussions on this matter, which obviously should not concern laypeople. In either case, both those who argue for and against his position as an absolute mujtahid agree that his foundational principles are based on the madhhab of imam Ahmad and rarely deviate from the principles of the madhhab, which is evident in his fatawa. It is worth noting that although there are instances where he may oppose certain scholarly aspects in the madhhab, most people do not realize that such "deviations" often involve the tangential branches of jurisprudence, similar to minor disagreements known from the early imams of the madhhabs and their students.
Without a solid understanding of the principles of jurisprudence, one's grasp of the sciences of Shari'ah may become fragmented. A lack of guiding principles can lead to misunderstandings in both jurisprudential matters and aspects of creed. Indeed, a scholar with a weak grasp of this science may adopt erroneous positions within the sciences of Shari'ah. Consider the implications for a student of knowledge who has not focused on this science; even being a native Arabic speaker does not safeguard against incorrect conclusions if they lack knowledge of this crucial field.
To point out the importance of principles of jurisprudence, the reason for imam ash-Shaafi'ee condifying them in written form was due to the fitnah between Ahlur-Ra'i [أهل الرأي] (people of opinion) and Ahlul-Hadith. One of the great teachers and scholars of imam al-Bukhaari, namely 'Abdullah ibn Zubayr al-Humaydi (d. 219 H) said about imam ash-Shaafi'ee: "We wanted to respond to the people of opinion, but we did not know how to respond to them until ash-Shaafi’ee came to us and opened for us." (Source)
The ‘People of Opinion’ [أصحاب الرأي] frequently resorted to qiyaas and istihsaan (legal preference). While resorting to qiyaas is not inherently wrong, it should be a last resort when no clear evidence exists from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijmaa', or statement of the Sahaabi. The main issue with the 'People of Opinion' was their limited hadith knowledge, leading them to overly rely on qiyaas, often creating hypothetical fiqh scenarios and discussing them in a speculative manner. This approach, characterized by frequent “what if” scenarios, earned them the nickname “What-Iffers”. (cf. Dr. Bilal Philips, Evolution of Fiqh)
There is a similar statement of imam al-Humaydi by imam Ahmad in which he was asked: "O Abu Muhammad [i.e. imam Ahmad], how is that?" He said: "Indeed, the people of opinion used to mock the people of hadith until ash-Shaafi'ee taught them and established evidence against them." (Source)
Thus, a scholar well-versed in the principles of jurisprudence will be qualified to give fatawa. Imam ash-Shaafi'ee (may Allah have mercy on him) said in what al-Khateeb reported about him in his book The Jurist and the One who understands: "No one should give a legal ruling in the Deen of Allah except a man who knows the Book of Allah: he knows what abrogates and what is abrogated, the clear and the ambiguous, its interpretation, its revelation, the Makkan and Madinan verses, what is meant by it, and in what it was revealed. Then after that, he should be aware of the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and of what abrogates and what is abrogated, and he should know from the hadith as he knew from the Qur'an. He should be insightful about language, insightful about poetry, and what is needed for knowledge and the Qur'an, and he should practice justice and speak less. After that, he should be familiar with the differences of the people of the regions and he should have intuition. If he is like that, he can speak and issue fatwas in the lawful and the unlawful. If he is not like that, he should not issue fatwas."
Similar to the previous quote from ibn 'Uyaynah, there is also a statement from a student of imam Maalik, namely imam 'Abdullah ibn Wahb (d. 197 H), who said: "Every person of hadith that does not have an imam in fiqh is misguided, and if Allah had not rescued us with Maalik and al-Layth [ibn Sa’d], we would have been misguided." (Source) On other reports, he was asked as to why it is as such, he replied: "I had too many hadiths, and it confused me, so I used to show that to Maalik and al-Layth, and they would say to me: Take this and put this." (Source)
Imam Maalik's words, "Indeed, I am but a human; I err and I get things right," are often misquoted to justify incorrect views. His statement should be understood in its entirety: "So, look into my opinion: whenever it agrees with the Book and the Sunnah, take it. And whenever it does not align with the Book and the Sunnah, leave it." (Source) This emphasizes the need for scholarly scrutiny and the dangers of laypeople misapplying jurisprudential statements without understanding their context. He is referring to the branches of jurisprudence where matters are not definitively established, unlike the well-known practices such as the five daily prayers. Furthermore, his words are not intended for laypeople who lack the ability to discern scholarly differences of opinion. Some issues, though not as clear-cut as the oneness of Allah, must be understood through the principles of jurisprudence.
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said: "... Taking the opinions of fuqahaa' from general statements without referring to their explanations and the implications of their principles leads to reprehensible positions." (Source)
The context of imam Maalik's statement pertains to ijtihaad. Following up on this point, the author of 'Comprehensive Exposition of Knowledge and Its Merit,' ibn 'Abdul-Barr al-Maaliki, explains: "Ijtihaad is only based on principles that involve [legal determinations of] prohibition and permissibility, and only a scholar knowledgeable in these principles can engage in ijtihaad. If something is unclear to him, he must refrain, and it is not permissible for him to attribute a statement about the Deen to Allah that has no equivalent foundation, nor is it in the meaning of a principle. This is a matter on which there is no disagreement among the imams of the regions, past and present, so consider it carefully."
These contextual explanations indeed apply to the other imams as well, all of whom shared similar views regarding matters where there is no definitively established stance within fiqh. If their statements or opinions contradicted an authentic hadith, we should disregard them and instead follow the authentic hadith. Matters definitively established in the sources of Shari'ah are only elucidated by scholars, and such issues are addressed in advanced and voluminous fiqh books where scholars discuss differences of opinion, evaluating which are valid, strong, weak, or should be disregarded. It is the scholars who disseminate this knowledge to students who have progressed through the stages of the science of jurisprudence within their respective madhhabs. This is why I must emphasize again that simply searching for fatwas, differences of opinion, or even attempting to find hadith or narrations from the Salaf will not aid in understanding these complex topics. The fault lies in adhering to the appealing but unrealistic claim to "Follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah by the understanding of the Salaf." This approach is championed by figures like shaykh al-Albani and shaykh Muqbil, and those influenced by them. While we can certainly respect these mashaayikh as scholars of hadith, being a muhaddith does not necessarily qualify one as a faqeeh, a point that unfortunately, shaykh al-Albani opined incorrectly. This has been clarified by shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin al-'Abbaad. (Source)
Therefore, you cannot effectively study fiqh through ahaadeeth al-ahkaam, as they are two entirely distinct disciplines. (Source) (Source) Shaykh ‘Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr stated: “These books primarily consist of texts stripped of their chains of transmission, authored by scholars for the purpose of memorization, and are not intended to include the extensive original books that narrate hadiths with their chains of transmission, even though the hadiths of legal rulings are present in them. However, when referring to books on the hadiths of legal rulings, it generally means texts that compile the hadiths of legal rulings according to well-known topics discussed among scholars.” (Source) This means that ahaadeeth al-ahkaam should be studied at the final stage, only after one has thoroughly mastered the various levels of fiqh within the madhhab to which they adhere. Ibn Badraan stated in his book al-Madkhal: "Know that a student cannot become proficient in jurisprudence unless he has an understanding of the principles, even if he studies fiqh for years and years. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or obstinate."
Relevant to my discussion on the mistakes of shaykh al-Albani, as noted by some mashaayikh:
The references provided should highlight the consequences of not following a madhhab and its comprehensive approach. This is particularly true where there has been no emphasis on the principles of jurisprudence, leading to errors in grading hadith due to a lack of knowledge in usool al-fiqh. Shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen mentioned a book by shaykh ad-Duwaysh, which critiques shaykh al-Albani's methodology of grading hadith, despite both scholars following the same methodology. However, when I consulted my shaykh about this, he indicated that shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen's wording might have been somewhat exaggerated, as he used the term 'always' [دائما]. It's not accurate to say that shaykh al-Albani was more often wrong than right. He sometimes made mistakes, but he was also correct at other times. It should also be noted that shaykh al-Albani previously acknowledged shaykh 'Abdullah ad-Dawaysh as a great hadith scholar. Check out:
This is not intended to undermine shaykh al-Albani’s efforts or to mock him, but to respectfully address his errors to prevent others from repeating them. It is also important to note that some have unduly elevated him to a status comparable to imam ibn Hajar al-Asqalani or even imam al-Bukhaari, which may not be justified. While it is fine to admire scholars, we must avoid the same kind of zealotry criticized in others, such as madhhab fanaticism, but applied here to shaykh al-Albani. We should recognize the difference between constructive criticism, which fosters growth, and unproductive criticism, which does not. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said: “No one should affiliate themselves to a shaykh, thus making friendship (i.e. loyalty) and enemies (i.e. disavowal) based on him." (Source) This advice encourages a balanced, thoughtful approach and evaluating scholars.
I highlighted these side points because IslamQA.info has made errors in their general praise of Shaykh al-Albani. They claim he follows the methodology of early hadith scholars and assert that he is a faqeeh, despite evidence to the contrary, as demonstrated above. Additionally, IslamQA also maintains that while following a madhhab is permissible, it is not obligatory.
Adherence to a madhhab is considered obligatory by majority of scholars (جمهور العلماء), including imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali. He elaborates on this in his work [الرد على من اتبع غير المذاهب الأربعة], refuting the stance of not following any of the four madhhabs:
If a pretentious fool says: "How can people be confined to the statements of certain scholars and be prevented from ijtihaad or taqleed other than them among the imams of the Deen?"
It should be said to him: "Just as the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) united the people on one letter [حرفٍ] from letters [حُروف] of the Qur'an and prevented people from the other Qiraa'ah in all countries, because they saw that the public interest is only achieved in that way, and if people were left to recite based on various readings, they would fall into major pitfalls."
Similarly, in the issues of rulings and fatawa concerning what is lawful and prohibited, if people are not restricted to the sayings of a limited number of imams, it would lead to the corruption of the Deen. Every pretentious fool who seeks leadership would consider himself among the rank of the mujtahids and might introduce an opinion attributing it falsely to some of the Salaf; perhaps by misinterpreting it, as often happened with some of the Dhaahiriyyah, or that opinion might be a zallah [i.e. mistaken opinion that cannot be considered valid] from one of the Salaf that a group of Muslims have unanimously agreed to abandon. The best interest is nothing but what Allah has decreed and destined, which is to unify people on the madhhabs of these well-known [four] imams, may Allah be pleased with them all.
If it is said, "The difference between unifying people one letter [حرفٍ] from letters [حُروف] of the Qur'an and unifying them on the statements of the four fuqahaa' is that the seven readings can be said to have one or similar meanings, and the meaning is confined to this letter [الحرف]. This is unlike the statements of the four fuqahaa'; it's possible they agree on something and the truth lies outside their consensus."
It is said in response, "Some scholars have refuted this and said: Surely, Allah would not have unified this Ummah on misguidance." And there are ahaadeeth that support this view.
In short, scholars base their reasoning from a principle that says [ما لا يتم الواجب إلا به فهو واجب], meaning, "What cannot be completed as obligatory except by it, then it is obligatory." It's important not to misunderstand this. Just because something is obligatory doesn't mean it carries the same weight as foundational obligations like salah. For instance, establishing the salah is not on the same level of obligation as letting one's beard grow. While we learn how to pray from hadith, not everyone can delve into the vast collections of hadith, discerning which have been abrogated, understanding their contexts, and aligning them with the statements of the Sahaabah. Such expertise is reserved for scholars. This is why we follow a madhhab. The path of the Sahaabah and the guidance of the imams have streamlined the process for us, allowing us to systematically learn about worship and interpersonal interactions. All these teachings are rooted in established legislative sources. The obligation to follow a madhhab is not in contradiction to the binding obligation to follow the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). By adhering to a madhhab, one is essentially following the teachings of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The key point is that the scholars have facilitated knowledge of the Prophet's (ﷺ) teachings.
Abu Dawood (3641) narrated that Abu’d-Darda’ said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say: “…The scholars are the heirs of the Prophets. The Prophets did not leave behind dinars or dirhams, rather they left behind a heritage of knowledge, and the one who acquires it acquires an abundant portion.”
In the quest to deepen one’s understanding of the complexities and nuances of Islamic jurisprudence and the role of madhhabs, certain books stand out as invaluable resources. I highly recommend the following works for those interested in exploring these topics further:
Return to the main page