A Brief Explanation on the Necessity of Following One Madhab

A Brief Explanation on Why it is Necessary to Follow One Madhhab

Our original obligation as Muslims is to follow the Sharī‘ah through the medium of its primary sources, i.e. the Qur’ān and Sunnah. [1] However, as individuals who are not qualified, and do not have the credentials to derive rulings from the Qur’ān and Sunnah, our obligation is to put our faith in qualified mujtahid scholars and trust the conclusions they have reached. [2]

There are two situations to this:

The first situation is where a non-mujtahid encounters the views of only a single mujtahid on specific issues. In this case, the non-mujtahid’s obligation is to follow only that mujtahid and his conclusions. He doesn’t have access to any other mujtahid or any other opinion. Hence, he must follow only the views of that mujtahid. That will be the Sharī‘ah for him. This was a situation that prevailed in earlier times in certain regions of the Muslim world. Certain regions were only Shāfi‘ī, certain regions were only Mālikī and certain regions were only Ḥanafī. In those places, it would be allowed to only follow the opinions of those respective madhhabs (schools of particular mujtahid imāms). [3]

Similarly, before the existence of madhhabs, when ijtihād (particularly, deriving new masā’il from the sources of Sharī‘ah) was in its early stages, a layperson who encountered the view of a mujtahid on an issue would probably be exposed to only that one view on the issue. Hence, his obligation would be to follow that ruling. [4]

The second situation is where a non-mujtahid is exposed to different views on specific issues. This is the situation of most Muslims today. A person is exposed to the view, for example, that bleeding breaks wuḍū’ and also to the view that bleeding does not break wuḍū’. A person is exposed to the view that one must wipe a quarter of his head for wuḍū’ to be valid and also to the view that one must wipe the entire head for it to be valid. This is a different situation to the above. [5]

Now, the layperson cannot simply adopt a view at random. Nor can he adopt a view based on his personal preference. The reason is that the layperson has to have firm belief and conviction that the view he is following is correct and is the position of Sharī‘ah. If he simply adopts a view, he is unsure whether the opinion he is following is the correct view or the other view/s is/are correct in Sharī‘ah. When he has doubt (shakk) on the ruling, the ruling does not carry the full weight of accountability or obligation (taklīf), which is the primary objective of Sharī‘ah: if he is not sure that this is the correct ruling, why would he feel compelled to act on it? Hence, taklīf is diminished. [6]

Not only this, but if a layperson was given the option to simply adopt any view, this would result in many other negative consequences, which the scholars of the past have discussed in detail. Examples include: tattabu‘ al-rukhaṣ (pursuing the easiest opinion on every issue), which is prohibited by consensus [7], ittibā‘ al-hawā (selecting the opinions based on desire) [8], following unverified and isolated opinions (shādhdh), and talfīq (mixing the opinions of two mujtahids in such a way that the resultant action is invalid according to both mujtahids). [9]

The different views of mujtahid scholars for the layperson are like conflicting evidences of Sharī‘ah for a mujtahid scholar. [10]

For example, both the mujtahid scholars, Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfi‘ī, were exposed to the evidences that require that a muqtadī (a follower in congregational ṣalāh) recites behind the imām in ṣalāh and the evidences that require that a muqtadī refrains from reciting behind the imām. Examples of the first set of evidences include: “There is no ṣalāh for the one who does not recite the opening of the Book” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhari) and: “There is no ṣalāh without recitation” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim); and examples of the second set of evidences include: “Whoever has an imām, the imām’s recitation is sufficient for him” (Sunan Ibn Mājah) and: “When the imām recites, remain quiet” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim). Now, both mujtahid scholars had to apply their ijtihād, juristic methodologies and critical analyses to these evidences, and choose which view they favour. This is known as tarjīḥ. Al-Shāfi‘ī adopted the view that a muqtadī must recite behind the imām and Abū Ḥanīfah the view that a muqtadī must not recite behind the imām. The two mujtahid scholars were not at liberty to follow both opinions simultaneously, as this would entail the Sharī‘ah is inherently contradictory and would amount to the absence of taklīf.

After the process of tarjīḥ, Abū Ḥanīfah has overwhelming belief (ghalabat al-ẓann) that the position of Sharī‘ah is that a muqtadī does not read behind the imām; and al-Shāfi‘ī has overwhelming belief (ghalabat al-ẓann) that a muqtadī must read behind the imām. This does not, however, mean that they regard the other view as completely invalid (bāṭil). Rather they maintain that there remains a possibility (iḥtimal), however small in their mind, of the other view being correct, although their own personal conviction and belief is that the view they have adopted is the correct view of Sharī‘ah. The position they have each adopted is the view of Sharī‘ah in their mind and the view that they are obligated to follow.

In the same way, a layperson may be exposed to the views of Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfi‘ī on this issue. Both views cannot simultaneously be correct, as that would entail a contradiction inherent in Sharī‘ah. Hence, if the layperson simply adopted a view without trying to ascertain which view is correct, he would be in doubt about the ruling, not having firm belief that it is the right one; and he wouldn’t have any firm belief that either view is correct. This is why he must also do tarjīḥ just as Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfi‘ī did tarjīḥ. But, how does a layperson do tarjīḥ?

The layperson (i.e. non-mujtahid) does not have access to the evidence; and even if he does have access to the evidence, he does not have full understanding of the background knowledge, principles and complex patterns of thought involved in the process of extracting rulings from the sources of Sharī‘ah. Hence, he cannot make tarjīḥ based on the evidence, no matter how intelligent he thinks he is. If he makes tarjīḥ on this basis, his tarjīḥ is not acceptable in light of Sharī‘ah, and it will rather be classed as “following a personal preference.” [11]

Rather, he must make tarjīḥ based on which mujtahid he believes is superior, and then follow that mujtahid in all his conclusions. [12] He will do this by reading about the biography of the different mujtahids, ascertaining which is more learned and more pious, which was afforded more praise by the masses and scholars, and whose madhhab is more widely practised and accepted, and other such criteria. Once he has applied his mind and chosen one mujtahid imām/madhhab to follow based on these criteria, his heart will feel inclined to the conclusions of that imām and will be content with them. He will now have firm belief that this is the view of Sharī‘ah and will follow that mujtahid and his madhhab strictly in all its rulings. [13] In this way, taklīf, the backbone of Sharī‘ah, will not be compromised, and the negative consequences of unrestricted taqlīd (i.e. having the liberty to follow any mujtahid imām in issues of disagreement) will be greatly reduced.

There is much more to say on the issue, but this is a basic outline of why it is necessary to choose a madhhab and stick to it, according to what major imāms of the past have mentioned, like al-Juwaynī, al-Ghazālī, Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, al-Shāṭibi and al-Subkī.