Tdipmbst!Gspn!Bmm!Gpvs!Nbeibbct!Wip!Eje!Opu!Pcmjhbuf!Ubrmffe!pg!b!

Nbeibc!Vqpn!U if!Mbznfn!

Produced by Harris Hammam (Ismail Ibrahim)

Compiled by Ali Boriqee

Source: Islamic Awakening Forum

This page is left intentionally blank

Prologue

The following material was researched and compiled by our dear brother shaykh Ismail Ibrahim well known as Harris Hammam.

This topic has become a major issue of contention between several factions within Sunni Islam. The material presented here is representative of the standard orthodox position that resides in the middle between two extremes. The material below is meant to counter the extremists viewpoint posited by advocates of pro taqleedists following of madhabs in the manners and arguments that they claim, all of which are truly unfounded. This material is NOT MEANT to support or validate the opposite extreme from the anti-madhaabists faction who declare the following of a madhaab under the caption of tahreem (prohibited) for they are just as equally incorrect in their extreme absurdities, if not more so than the pro-taqleedist factions.

The standard position of ahlu-sunnah wal-jama’ah is a two part position1. Following a madhaab is mubah (acceptable). It is neither binding (waajib) nor is it illegal

(haraam). 2. The laymen truly and ultimately has no madhaab. His madhaab is the madhaab of the one

whom he or she confides in (teacher, scholar) as they follow whatever they are given from the one who is being asked (mufti, shaykh, ustadh, taalib)

The reason why a laymen does not have a madhaab is because the essence and purpose of a madhaab is to guide an aspiring jurist or scholar to the proper methods of istinbaat (properly deducing rulings from source texts eliminating the proliferation of contradictions as a result of a lack of abiding by a madhaab). Since the laymen is neither on the path to embark on becoming a jurist nor does he/she intend to perform istinbaat, then the essence of their taking knowledge from the religion becomes the base command of Allah as He says

“Ask those from the people of adh-Dhikr (the people of knowledge) if you do not know”

and so the essence of what they follow simply is mirrored and modeled on the one whom they confide and ask from the people of knowledge, hence the saying “their madhaab is the madhaab of their shaykh”. Simple and straight forward. There is no rocket science to it. Yet proponents of each extremist faction, as usual with most extremes, tend to make issues much more harder and causing more confusion than necessary.

The Hanaabilah (hanbalis)

50 ḤANBALĪ SCHOLARS WHO DID NOT OBLIGATE TAQLĪD MADHHABĪ

1. Regarding Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥanbal al-Shaybānī (died 241 A.H.), Ibn Abī Yaʿlā (died 526 A.H.) said (Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanābilah, 1/381-382, Maktabat 'l-ʿUbaykān Riyadh, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.): [Al-Ḥusayn bin Bashshār al-Mukharrimī] asked Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal about an issue in divorce. He replied, “If he does [it], he would have perjured [and thus divorced her].”… [He] asked, “[Aḥmad, would it be permissible] if a person gave me [an alternative] ruling, i.e. that he would not have perjured?” He told [him], “Do you know the circle of the Madanese?” [He] said, “Yes… So if they give me the ruling [that he would not have perjured], would it [be allowed]?” He said, “Yes.”

2. Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn bin Bashshār bin Mūsā al-Mukharrimī (died 286 A.H.) said (taken from Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanābilah by Ibn Abī Yaʿlā (died 526 A.H.), 1/381-382, Maktabat 'l-ʿUbaykān Riyadh, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.): I asked Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal about an issue in divorce. He replied, “If he does [it], he would have perjured [and thus divorced her].”… I asked, “[Aḥmad, would it be permissible], if a person gave me [an alternative] ruling, i.e. that he would not have perjured?” He told me, “Do you know the circle of the Madanese?” I said, “Yes… So if they give me the ruling [that he would not have perjured], would it [be allowed]?” He said, “Yes.”

3. Abū Bakr al-Khallāl Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Hārūn bin Yazīd al-Baghdādī (died 311 A.H.) said (taken from Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanābilah by Ibn Abī Yaʿlā (died 526 A.H.), 1/381-382, Maktabat 'l-ʿUbaykān Riyadh, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.): “Al-Ḥusayn bin Bashshār al-Mukharrimī told me, ‘I asked Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal about an issue in divorce. He replied, “If he does [it], he would have perjured [and thus divorced her].”… I asked, “[Aḥmad, would it be permissible], if a person gave me [an alternative] ruling, i.e. that he would not have perjured?” He told me, “Do you know the circle of the Madanese?” I said, “Yes… So if they give me the ruling [that he would not have perjured], would it [be allowed]?” He said, “Yes.”

4. Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan bin Shihāb al-ʿUkbarī (died 428 A.H.) said (Sharḥ Risālah Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh – commentary by Saʿd bin Nāṣir al-Shathrī, pg. 162-163, Dār Kunūz Ishbīlyā Riyadh, 1st edition, 1428 A.H.): Is he obligated to exercise Ijtihād in [choosing the best] jurisconsult or not? The correct position in the school is that he is not bound to exercise Ijtihād in [choosing the best] jurisconsult; rather he may follow the opinion of whomsoever he likes, because just as he is not required to exercise Ijtihād in [the evidences of] the ruling, he is [also] not required to exercise Ijtihād in [choosing the best] jurisconsult.

5. Abū Yaʿlā Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn al-Farrā' al-Baghdādī (died 458 A.H.) said (Al-ʿUddah Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, 5/1226-1227, Mu'assasat Usāmah Aḥmad Mubārak Riyadh, 2nd edition, 1410 A.H.): [The layman] is not obligated to exercise Ijtihād in [choosing the best jurisconsult]; rather he may follow whomsoever he likes, because just as he is not required to exercise Ijtihād in [the evidences of] the ruling, [then] likewise [he is not required to exercise Ijtihād in choosing the best jurisconsult]… If he asks two scholars [and] they agree on an answer, he would practise on what they told him. If they differ… like [when] he asks regarding unequivocal divorce intending it as triple [divorce]

and a Ḥanbalī told him, “She would be divorced with one”, whereas a Shāfiʿī told him, “She would be divorced with three”, he may follow whomsoever out of the two he likes. He does not have to take the opinion of the one who is stricter on him.

6. Abū 'l-Khaṭṭāb Maḥfūẓ bin Aḥmad al-Kalwadhānī (died 510 A.H.) said (Al-Tamhīd Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, 4/403, Center of Academic Research Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.): Vis-à-vis a group of people, if he believes they are from those qualified for Ijtihād, he follow whomsoever he likes among them.

7. Abū 'l-Wafā' ʿAlī bin ʿAqīl bin Muḥammad bin ʿAqīl al-Baghdādī (died 513 A.H.) said (Al-Wāḍiḥ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, 5/1226-1227, Mu'assasat 'l-Risālah Beirut, 1st edition, 1420 A.H.): It is not permissible for the layman to follow whomsoever he likes from the scholars; rather it is obligatory on him to choose the most knowledgeable and most godfearing – to safeguard his religion – according to his capability. This was opined by Ibn Surayj and al-Qaffāl from the disciples of al-Shāfiʿī. A group of scholars said, “We do not make it necessary on him [to do] that”, and most of the disciples of al-Shāfiʿī are on [this position].

8. Ibn Abī Yaʿlā Abū 'l-Ḥusayn Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn al-Farrā' al-Baghdādī (died 526 A.H.) said (Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanābilah, 1/381-382, Maktabat 'l-ʿUbaykān Riyadh, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.): [Al-Ḥusayn bin Bashshār al-Mukharrimī] asked Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal about an issue in divorce. He replied, “If he does [it], he would have perjured [and thus divorced her].”… [He] asked, “[Aḥmad, would it be permissible], if a person gave me [an alternative] ruling, i.e. that he would not have perjured?” He told [him], “Do you know the circle of the Madanese?” [He] said, “Yes… So if they give me the ruling [that he would not have perjured], would it [be allowed]?” He said, “Yes.”

9. Ibn Qudāmah Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd 'llāh bin Aḥmad al-Maqdisī (died 620 A.H.) said (Rawḍat 'l-Nāẓir Wa-Junnat 'l-Munāẓir, printed with Nuzhat 'l-Khāṭir al-ʿĀṭir by Ibn Badrān (died 1346 A.H.), 2/391, Dār 'l-Ḥadīth Beirut, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.): If there are [multiple] Mujtahids in a city, the follower may ask whomsoever he likes. He does not have to refer to [only] the most knowledge, as per the reports from the era of the Companions…

10. Abū 'l-Barakāt ʿAbd 'l-Salām bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin 'l-Khaḍir Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ḥarrānī (died 653 A.H.) said (taken from al-Musawwadah, compiled by Abū 'l-ʿAbbas Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Ḥarrānī (died 745 A.H.), pg. 851, Dār 'l-Faḍīlah Riyadh, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.): In the subsidiaries, a layman may follow whichever Mujtahid he likes…

11. Abū 'l-Maḥāsin ʿAbd 'l-Ḥalīm bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin 'l-Khaḍir Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ḥarrānī (died 682 A.H.) said (taken from al-Musawwadah, compiled by Abū 'l-ʿAbbas Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Ḥarrānī (died 745 A.H.), pg. 865 and 921, Dār 'l-Faḍīlah Riyadh, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.): The position that the majority from our [disciples] and all other [schools] is that there is no problem in laymen taking whichever opinion [they like].

12. Abū 'l-Faraj ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Qudāmah al-Maqdisī (died 682 A.H.) said (Al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr, 3/348, Dār Hajar Giza, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.): If both are equal [in his estimation in relation to the Qiblah], he may follow whomsoever out of the two he likes, just like the layman [would do when faced with conflicting] scholars in all laws.

13. Abū Ṭālib ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin ʿUmar al-Baṣrī al-ʿAbdaliyānī (died 684 A.H.) said (Al-Ḥāwī Fī al-Fiqh, 1/280, Maktabat 'l-Asadī Makkah, 1st edition, 1430 A.H.): Some of our disciples have deduced that it is not obligatory [for the ignorant and blind person to follow the most trustworthy in regards to the Qiblah], based on the choice the layman has in choosing whichever Mujtahid he likes… There is inconvenience and constriction in [making the layman responsible for following the most knowledgeable scholar in rulings]. In addition, laymen in all eras have followed [one] Mujtahid in an issue, another [Mujtahid] in another [issue], and a third in a third, and likewise to innumerable numbers. It is not reported that they were condemned for that, nor [is it reported] that they were ordered to seek out the most knowledgeable and the superior [scholar] in their estimation.

14. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Aḥmad bin Ḥamdān bin Shabīb al-Ḥarrānī (died 695 A.H.) said:- Whosoever adheres to a school, he would be condemned for going against it without proof, valid following, or an evident excuse. (Nihāyat 'l-Mubtadi'īn Fī Uṣūl 'l-Dīn, pg. 67, Maktabat 'l-Rushd Riyadh, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.)- When one finds out the most trustworthy out of the two [jurisconsults], the most evident position is that it is necessary to follow him, not the other one, just like it is obligatory [upon the scholar] to give preference to the most preferred of two [apparently conflicting] evidences [in the Qurān and Sunnah], and the most reliable narrations [from the Imām of the school]… It appears that it is necessary for the [lay questioner] to undertake Ijtihād in [choosing] individual jurisconsults, and that it is necessary for him to choose the verdict of whom he chooses and prefers via his own Ijtihād… If he finds another jurisconsult [and] it is clear that the one he asked [first] is the more knowledgeable and trustworthy one [out of the two], his verdict would be necessary for him based on the most correct position in his specification, as has passed. [But] if that is not clear to him, his verdict would not be binding on him by [the first jurisconsult’s] mere act of passing a verdict to him, as it would be permissible for him to ask another [jurisconsult] and follow him, so long as he does not learn of their unity in verdict. If [the lay questioner] finds [they are] united [in their verdict], or a governor ruled by [that verdict] on him, it would have then become necessary for him. (Ṣifat 'l-Fatwā Wa-'l-Muftī Wa-'l-Mustaftī, pg. 70 and 82, Maktab 'l-Manshūrāt al-Islāmī Damascus, 1st edition, 1380 A.H.)

15. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad Ibn Abī 'l-Fatḥ al-Baʿlī (died 709 A.H.) said (Talkhīṣ Rawḍat 'l-Nāẓir, 2/720-722, Dār 'l-Tadmuriyyah Riyadh, 1st edition, 1426 A.H.): If there are [multiple] Mujtahids in the city, he would not have to refer to the most knowledgeable [only], because the laypeople in the era of the Companions [used to] ask [both] the superior and the lesser scholars… If both jurisconsults are equal in his estimation, he may take the opinion of whomsoever out of the two he likes, as one’s opinion is not worthier [of being adopted] than the other’s opinion.

16. Abū 'l-Rabīʿ Sulaymān bin ʿAbd 'l-Qawī bin ʿAbd 'l-Karīm al-Ṭūfī (died 716 A.H.) said (Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar 'l-Rawḍah, 3/667, Ministry of Islāmic Affairs & Awqāf, Saudi Arabia, 2nd edition, 1419 A.H.): The two opinions [i.e. asking any scholar and asking only the best scholar] are close to each other. The first is easier [for practice]; the second is more cautious.

17. Abū 'l-ʿAbbas Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-Ḥalīm bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin 'l-Khaḍir Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ḥarrānī (died 728 A.H.) said (taken from al-Musawwadah, compiled by Abū 'l-ʿAbbas Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Ḥarrānī (died 745 A.H.), pg. 931, Dār 'l-Faḍīlah Riyadh, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.): When a Mujtahid passes a ruling of illegality and another of legality, and

their edicts are equal according to the layman, he would have a choice in taking whichever he likes. Once he chooses one, taking it would become [binding on him].

18. Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd 'l-Mu'min bin ʿAbd 'l-Ḥaqq al-Baghdādī (died 739 A.H.) said (Qawāʿid 'l-Uṣūl Wa-Maʿāqid 'l-Fuṣūl, pg. 124, Dār 'l-Faḍīlah Cairo, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.): If there are [multiple] Mujtahids in the city, he may choose [any one of them].

19. Ibn Qayyim 'l-Jawziyyah Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin Abī Bakr bin Ayyūb al-Dimashqī (died 751 A.H.) said (Iʿlām 'l-Muwaqqiʿīn ʿAn Rabb 'l-ʿĀlamīn, 6/203-206, Dār Ibn 'l-Jawzī Dammam, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.): The sixty-sixth point: Does the questioner have to undertake Ijtihād in individual jurisconsults and ask the most knowledgeable and religious, or is that not necessary? There are two positions in this as has been previously mentioned. We have explained the [evidences] for both. The correct position is that it would necessary for him, as it is the achievable [act] in the fear of Allah Most High, of which everyone has been commanded…Does the layman have to adopt one of the mainstream schools or not? There are two positions in this. One is that he does not have to. This is most definitely the correct position, as there is no obligation other than what Allāh and His Messenger ordained. Allāh and His Messenger have not ordained any person to adopt the school of a man from the Ummah, following him [in everything of] his religion to the exclusion of [everyone] else. The best generations passed free of [such] affiliations. In fact, it is not even correct for a layman [to have] a school, even if he adopted [one], as the layman has no school, because a school is only: for the one who possesses a degree of insight and evidentiary deduction, and is aware of the schools according to his capability; or for the one who read a book in the rulings of that school and became aware of its Imām’s edicts and opinions. As for the one who is not qualified for this at all [yet still] claims “I am a Shāfiʿī” or “[I am] a Ḥanbalī” or anything else, he would not have become as such by mere claim, just like if one claimed “I am a jurist (or) a grammarian (or) a writer”, he would not have become as such by his mere claim. Explaining [this point] is that a person claiming to be a Shāfiʿī, or a Mālikī, or Ḥanafī thinks he is following that Imām and is on his path – this is only correctly [applicable] to the one who is on his path in knowledge, awareness and evidentiary deduction; [if] he is ignorant and far removed from the modus operandi, knowledge and path of the Imām, how can it be correct for him to affiliate [himself] to [his school] other than via hollow claims and statements empty of meaning? It is not comprehendible that the layman can correctly possess a school; even if that is comprehendible, it would not be necessary on him [to adhere to it]… Based on this, he may ask whomsoever he likes out of the followers of the Four Imāms and others. By consensus, it is not obligatory upon either him or the jurisconsult to confine himself to one out of the Four Imāms… However, he may not seek out the dispensations of the schools and take his need from any in which he finds it; rather he should follow the truth [i.e. following the best available scholar] as much as possible. The sixty-seventh point: If two jurisconsults or more differ in front of [the layman], should he: [1] the most strictest of opinions; [2] [take] the most easiest [of opinions]; [3] choose [either]; [4] [take] … the opinion of the most knowledgeable; [5] [take the opinion of] the most godfearing; [6] refer to another jurisconsult, so he would see whom out of the first two [jurisconsults] he agrees with [and] practice the verdict on which he signs; or [7] is it obligatory on him find out and search for the preferred position howsoever he is able [to do so]? There are seven positions in this, out of which the most preferred is the seventh, so he would practice as he would [do] when two paths, doctors or advisors differ, as has been previously [mentioned].

20. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin Mufliḥ al-Maqdisī (died 763 A.H.) said (Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh ʿAlā Madhhab 'l-Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal, 4/1559-1562, Maktabat 'l-ʿUbaykān Riyadh, 1st edition, 1420 A.H.): A follower may follow a lesser Mujtahid according to most of our disciples… If [the jurisconsults] are equal, [the layman] may choose [whomsoever he likes]… The more famous view out of the two is that [it is] not [binding on him to adhere to a single school, in which he acts on all its obligations and dispensations].

21. Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī al-Maqdisī (died 773 A.H.) said (Al-Tadhkirah Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 95, al-Maktabah al-ʿAṣriyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1432 A.H.): Whoever has [the aforementioned] characteristics in him, he would be from those qualified for Ijtihād, judgeship and jurisconsultancy. It would be permissible for a layman to follow him in his judgeship and issuing of legal edicts.

22. ʿAlī bin Muḥammad al-Kinānī al-ʿAsqalānī (died 777 A.H.) said (Sawād 'l-Nāẓir Wa-Shaqā'iq 'l-Rawḍ al-Nāḍir, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 306178, pg. 127): The consensus of the Companions [on the permissibility of asking any scholar] would be considered applicable to a fresh question, not when two answers conflict in front of the questioner. The difference is that, post-questioning, two opinions have contradicted for him, so it is necessary to take on out of the two via a tool of preference, as opposed to pre-questioning.

23. Abū 'l-Faraj ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Aḥmad bin Rajab al-Baghdādī al-Dimashqī (died 795 A.H.) said (Al-Radd ʿAlā Man Ittabaʿ Ghayr 'l-Madhāhib al-Arbaʿah, part of Majmuʿ Rasā'il 'l-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī, 2/626, Dār 'l-Fārūq al-Ḥadīthah Cairo, 2nd edition, 1424 A.H.): Following these Imāms is acceptable without doubt. There is no sin on [the Imāms], those who follow them, or [those who follow just] some of them.

24. Ibn 'l-Laḥḥām Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Muḥammad al-Baʿlī al-Dimashqī (died 803 A.H.) said (Sharḥ 'l-Mukhtaṣar Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh – commentary by Saʿd bin Nāṣir al-Shathrī, pg. 750, Dār Kunūz Ishbīlyā Riyadh, 1st edition, 1428 A.H.): Does a layman have to adopt a school [in which] he takes [all] its obligations and dispensations? There are two views in [this]. Abū 'l-ʿAbbās [Ibn Taymiyyah] said, “[The view of i]ts permissibility is somewhat problematic.”

25. Abū Bakr bin Zayd al-Jurāʿī al-Ṣāliḥī (died 883 A.H.) said (Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh – from the beginning of the chapter on Muṭlaq to the end of the book, pg. 325-327, e-copy, tinyurl.com/bcab73t, retrieved 9/1/2013, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, master thesis, 1422 A.H.): In our favour [for the opinion that the layman can follow a lesser scholar] is that [people] asked the Companions and the Predecessors, and they issued verdicts [them]… The more famous of the two [positions regarding the obligation of adopting a school] is [that it is] not [obligatory], as is the position of the majority, in which case he would have a choice [i.e. he may ask any scholar]…

26. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Sulaymān al-Mardāwī (died 885 A.H.) said: - He may follow a lesser scholar according to most of our disciples and the majority… The most famous out of the two [positions regarding adopting a school] is [that it is] not [obligatory], so he can choose [between scholars]. (Al-Taḥbīr Sharḥ 'l-Taḥrīr, 8/4080-4087, Maktabat 'l-Rushd Riyadh, 1st edition, 1421 A.H.)- The statement of Shaykh Taqī 'l-Dīn [Ibn Taymiyyah] has been mentioned in the [text] of the author [Ibn Mufliḥ], and it is in accordance with what Ibn 'l-Qayyim said, and that is the correct

position. (Taṣḥīḥ 'l-Furūʿ, printed under Kitāb 'l-Furūʿ by Ibn Mufliḥ (died 763 A.H.), 11/346, Mu'assasat 'l-Risālah Beirut, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.)

27. Ibn 'l-Mibrid Yūsuf bin Ḥasan al-Maqdisī (died 909 A.H.) said:- It is permissible to follow a lesser Mujtahid according to most of our disciples… If they are equal, he would have a choice… Some of our disciples mentioned two positions [on] whether it is necessary for him to adopt a school [in which he] adopts its obligations and dispensations: if it is necessary for him, he would ask those who are from his school; [if not], he would also choose. (Maqbūl 'l-Manqūl Min ʿIlmay 'l-Jadal Wa-'l-Uṣūl, pg. 239-240, Dār 'l-Bashā'ir al-Islāmiyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1428 A.H.)- In the most correct narration from Aḥmad (may Allāh most high have mercy on him), it is permissible to follow a lesser scholar despite the presence of the superior scholar, because it is permissible to follow him when the superior scholar is not there, so likewise when he is. [In] the second narration, it is impermissible, because [the superior scholar’s] Ijtihād is stronger. If [a layman] asks them (i.e. the two Mujtahids), and they differ in front of [this questioner], and they are equal in his eyes, he may follow whomsoever of the two he likes, as chosen by most of our disciples, whether he asked him first or not. (Sharḥ Ghāyat 'l-Sūl Ilā ʿIlm 'l-Uṣūl, pg. 442, Dār 'l-Bashā'ir al-Islāmiyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1421 A.H.)

28. Abū 'l-Najā Mūsā bin Aḥmad al-Ḥajjāwī al-Maqdisī (died 968 A.H.) said (Al-Iqnāʿ, 4/407-408, King ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz Foundation Riyadh, 3rd edition, 1423 A.H.): The opinion of an upright knowledgeable person is sufficient for [the layman]… [Regarding] the necessity of adopting a school and the prohibition of switching from it, the most famous position is [against that]… If he asks two or more jurisconsults, he can choose [the opinion of whomsoever he likes].

29. Ibn 'l-Najjār Abū 'l-Baqā' Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz al-Futūḥī (died 972 A.H.) said (Sharḥ 'l-Kawkab al-Munīr, commentary on “al-Taḥrīr” by al-Mardāwī (died 885 A.H.), 4/574-580, Maktabat 'l-ʿUbaykān Riyadh, 1st edition, 1413 A.H.): “It is not obligatory” i.e. it is not obligatory on the layman “to adopt a school [in] which he takes [all] its obligations and dispensations” in the most famous of the two views… It is also “not” necessary for him “that he does not switch from the school he has practised” according to most… “If two Mujtahids differ in front of him” i.e. the layman, [i.e.] one issues one ruling to him and the other another [ruling], “he can choose” in taking whichever verdict he likes, according to the correct position.

30. Marʿī bin Yūsuf al-Karmī (died 1033 A.H.) said: - A layman does not have to adopt a specific school, just as that was not necessary in the era of the first people in the Ummah. (Ghāyat 'l-Muntahā, printed with its commentary Maṭālib Ulī 'l-Nuhā by al-Ruḥaybānī (died 1243 A.H.), 6/446, al-Maktab al-Islāmī Damascus, 1st edition, 1381 A.H.)- The position I adopt and choose is the permissibility of mixing up in following – not with the intent of constantly seeking that out, because the one who constantly seeks for dispensations would have transgressed – but rather when that occurs by chance, especially from laymen who have no choice other than that. (Jawāb Su'āl Ḥawl 'l-Talfīq Fī al-Taqlīd, reproduced in Tajrīd Zawā'id 'l-Ghāyah by al-Shaṭṭī (died 1307 A.H.), printed under Maṭālib Ulī 'l-Nuhā by al-Ruḥaybānī (died 1243 A.H.), 1/670, al-Maktab al-Islāmī Damascus, 1st edition, 1381 A.H.)

31. Manṣūr bin Yūnus bin Idrīs al-Buhūtī (died 1051 A.H.) said (Kashshāf 'l-Qināʿ ʿAn Matn 'l-Iqnāʿ, 6/3199, Dār ʿĀlam 'l-Kutub Riyadh, special edition, 1423 A.H.): [A] questioner can choose

[whichever opinion he likes to take], even if [the jurisconsult] does not give him a choice [between his own opinion and another opinion].

32. Regarding Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin ʿAlī al-Buhūtī al-Khalwatī (died 1088 A.H.), al-Qaddūmī (died 1331 A.H.) said (Al-Manhaj al-Aḥmad Fī Dar' 'l-Mathālib al-Latī Tunmā Li-Madhhab 'l-Imām Aḥmad, pg. 68-69, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1429 A.H.): Our teacher [al-Shaṭṭī (died 1307 A.H.)] also reported that al-Khalwatī indicated in his scholium on al-Muntahā towards the prevention of following when it leads to mixing up.

33. Ibn Qā'id ʿUthmān bin Aḥmad al-Najdī (died 1097 A.H.) agreed with Ibn 'l-Najjar (died 972 A.H.). (See Ḥāshiyat 'l-Muntahā, printed with Muntahā 'l-Irādāt, 5/262, Mu'assasat 'l-Risālah Beirut, 1st edition, 1419 A.H.)

34. Abū 'l-ʿAwn Muḥammad bin Aḥmad al-Saffārīnī (died 1148 A.H.) said:- When we say that he must adopt a school, [we add that] it is permissible for him to switch from the school he adopted and practised on according to most. He can thus choose in both [opinions, i.e. the obligation and non-obligation of adopting a school]… The third position is the distinction [between when] he practised, prayed, fasted, gave alms, etc. according to the requirement of the school he adopted without looking at another [school] ([i.e.] he must stay with [the school] and switching from it would not be allowed); [and between when he has not practised upon that verdict in the school, in which case he make take from another school]. Some scholars have considered [this opinion] to be correct, and more than one have emphatically endorsed it… A layman may follow a lesser [Mujathid] in the presence of a superior [Mujtahid]… (Lawāmiʿ 'l-Anwār al-Bahiyyah Wa-Sawāṭiʿ 'l-Asrār al-Athariyyah, 2/465-467, Mu'assasat 'l-Khāfiqayn Damsacus, 1st edition, 1402 A.H.)- As for following [another Imām], it is permissible when taking into consideration all the prerequisites and obligations of [the issue] in which he followed [the other Imām]. (Al-Taḥqīq Fī Buṭlān 'l-Talfīq, reproduced in Tajrīd Zawā'id 'l-Ghāyah by al-Shaṭṭī (died 1307 A.H.), printed under Maṭālib Ulī 'l-Nuhā by al-Ruḥaybānī (died 1243 A.H.), 1/673, al-Maktab al-Islāmī Damascus, 1st edition, 1381 A.H.)

35. Ḥamad bin Nāṣir bin ʿUthmān al-Tamīmī Āl Maʿmar (died 1225 A.H.), quoting Ibn Qayyim 'l-Jawziyyah (died 751 A.H.) said (Risālat 'l-Ijtihād Wa-'l-Taqlīd, taken from al-Rasā'il Wa-'l-Masā'il al-Najdiyyah, 2/7, Maṭbaʿat 'l-Manār Cairo, 1st edition, 1344 A.H.): This layman must follow the most knowledgeable in his estimation…

36. Ghannām bin Muḥammad bin Ghannām al-Najdī al-Dimashqī (died 1237 A.H.) said (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): As for the fourth issue, then it is – as stated by [Abū 'l-Ḥasan al-Sindī (died 1138 A.H.)], i.e. the permissibility of mixing up, as was chosen by the great scholar of his era, Shaykh Marʿī. I do not know anybody from the Imāms of our school who differed with him other than Shaykh al-Saffārīnī, evidenced by the statement of [the Ḥanbalī scholars] was [reported] by… Shaykh Marʿī in al-Muntahā and al-Iqnāʿ, “If the Imām leaves out a rudimentary component or a prerequisite that is differed over without [Ijtihād] or following [another Imām], he would have to repeat [his prayer].”

37. Muṣṭafā bin Saʿdī al-Ruḥaybānī (died 1243 A.H.) said (Maṭālib Ulī 'l-Nuhā Fī Sharḥ Ghāyat 'l-Muntahā, 6/446, al-Maktab al-Islāmī Damascus, 1st edition, 1381 A.H.): … and it is not reported from any one of [the Companions or their followers] that they told the one asking them

for a legal ruling, “It is obligatory on you to take care of the rules of the position you are following so that you do not mix up between two positions or more in your worship”; rather whosoever asked them regarding an issue, he would give him the ruling in it based on what he [took] as his own position, allowing him to act [on it] without [any such] investigation or clarification. Had [the process of ascertaining that mix-ups did not occur] been necessary, they would not have abandoned it, especially given the multitude of difference in their opinions.

38. ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAbd 'l-Rahmān Bā-Baṭīn al-Najdī (died 1282 A.H.), quoting Ibn Qayyim 'l-Jawziyyah (died 751 A.H.), said (taken from al-Rasā'il Wa-'l-Masā'il al-Najdiyyah, 2/124, Maṭbaʿat 'l-Manār Cairo, 1st edition, 1344 A.H.): When a situation occurs for [such a layman], he would ask the one he knows as a judicious scholar…

39. Muḥammad bin Ḥasan bin ʿUmar al-Shaṭṭī (died 1307 A.H.) said:- It is permissible to follow any trustworthy Imām in which the issue does not carry any [potential] qualifier – such as the one following Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī in the legality of swine fat, the one following Ibn Ḥazm in staying in the mosque for the sexually defiled, and the follower of Ibn Taymiyyah in his [solitary opinions] – especially when the times change and the situation turns for the worst, because when an issue has an opinion of a scholar [such as the aforementioned opinions], it would be better to act on them [by way of following these Imāms] rather than [doing these acts] without [the intention of] following [the Imām who allowed it]. (Quoting al-Karmī (died 1033 A.H.), Muqaddimat Tawfīq 'l-Mawādd al-Niẓāmiyyah Li-Aḥkām 'l-Sharīʿah al-Muḥammadiyyah, pg. 38, al-Maṭbaʿah al-Fākhirah Cairo, 1st edition, 1325 A.H.)- The written piece of [al-Karmī on mixing up] is fine. His evidences and reasoning are decent and strong, [and my] heart is content with them. But since there is difference, dispute and uncertainty in [the legal status of mixing up], there is no doubt that adherence to taking care [of the prerequisites of another Imām’s position] in [that issue] he is following is good. [Mixing up] is from the doubtful matters, from which abstaining is required, so ruminate. (Tajrīd Zawā'id 'l-Ghāyah, printed under Maṭālib Ulī 'l-Nuhā by al-Ruḥaybānī (died 1243 A.H.), 1/676, al-Maktab al-Islāmī Damascus, 1st edition, 1381 A.H.)

40. ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAwdah bin ʿAbd 'llāh Ṣūfān al-Qaddūmī (died 1331 A.H.) said (Al-Manhaj al-Aḥmad Fī Dar' 'l-Mathālib al-Latī Tunmā Li-Madhhab 'l-Imām Aḥmad, pg. 65, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1429 A.H.): What is understood from the discussion of our scholars (may Allāh Most High have mercy on them) is that a follower must adhere to the school of whom he followed vis-à-vis the legality of marriage without a marriage representative, or with a marriage representative who is an open transgressor, or with a couple of witnesses who are open transgressors.

41. Ibn Badrān ʿAbd 'l-Qādir bin Aḥmad al-Dimashqī (died 1346 A.H.) said (Nuzhat 'l-Khāṭir al-ʿĀṭir, 2/391, Dār 'l-Ḥadīth Beirut, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.): And [the obligation of referring to the superior scholar] is the position we take, as the superior [jurisconsult] is the one who is more likely guided in the minute aspects of the law.

42. Abū 'l-Khayl Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Ḥusayn al-Najdī (died 1381 A.H.) said (Al-Zawā'id, 2/887, Dār Aḍwā' 'l-Salaf Riyadh edition): [The jurisconsult] can give the questioner a choice between his opinion and his rival’s opinion.

43. Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin ʿAbd 'l-Laṭīf bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Ḥasan bin Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Wahhāb al-Tamīmī (died 1389 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Wa-Rasā'il Samāḥat 'l-Shaykh

Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm bin ʿAbd 'l-Laṭīf Āl 'l-Shaykh, 2/19, Maṭbaʿat 'l-Ḥukūmah Makkah, 1st edition, 1399 A.H.): If one goes to ask someone whom he knows is lesser in knowledge, and he took his opinion because it suited him, then this person would be more blameworthy than the one who followed a man [and] not his peer just out of his predilection [i.e. for no particular reason].

44. ʿAbd 'l-Razzāq bin ʿAfīfī bin ʿAṭiyyah al-ʿAfīfī (died 1415 A.H.) signed (Fatāwā 'l-Lajnah al-Dā'imah, 5/64, Dār 'l-Mu'ayyad Riyadh, 5th edition, 1424 A.H.): It is not necessary upon anybody to follow a particular school out of these schools; rather… whosoever is unable to derive rulings from the texts etc… he should ask trusted people of knowledge in regards to the rulings of the Sharīʿah…

45. Ibn Bāz ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin ʿAbd 'llāh Āl Bāz (died 1420 A.H.) said (audio edict, tinyurl.com/bzah7hr[/URL], retrieved 2/2/2013): The one who says it is necessary on people to adopt a school – like the school of Aḥmad, Mālik or al-Shāfiʿī – his opinion is incorrect. 46. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn al-Tamīmī (died 1421 A.H.) said (Sharḥ 'l-Uṣūl Min ʿIlm 'l-al-Uṣūl, pg. 637, Dār 'l-Baṣīrah Alexandria, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.): We have mentioned that [following the best available scholar in terms of knowledge and piety] is by way of desirability, not by way of obligation.

47. ʿAbd 'llāh bin Ḥasan bin Quʿūd (died 1426 A.H.) signed (Fatāwā 'l-Lajnah al-Dā'imah, 5/64, Dār 'l-Mu'ayyad Riyadh, 5th edition, 1424 A.H.): It is not necessary upon anybody to follow a particular school out of these schools; rather… whosoever is unable to derive rulings from the texts etc… he should ask trusted people of knowledge in regards to the rulings of the Sharīʿah…

48. Bakr bin ʿAbd 'llāh Abū Zayd (died 1429 A.H.) said (Al-Madkhal al-Mufaṣṣal Ilā Fiqh 'l-Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal Wa-Takhrījāt 'l-Aṣḥāb, 2/64-65, Dār 'l-ʿĀṣimah Riyadh, 1st edition, 1417 A.H.): It is permissible for this layman to follow whichever scholar he likes without restriction, in any issue that befalls him… [but] not out of constantly seeking dispensations or following desire.

49. Ibn Jibrīn ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān Āl Rashīd (died 1430 A.H.) said (tinyurl.com/cx6ls9v, retrieved 5/2/2013): It is sufficient for you that you are a Muslim following the Sharīʿah. As for the Ḥanbalī or the Shāfiʿī School, it is not necessary to stick to it.

50. ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān Āl Ghudayyān (died 1431 A.H.) signed (Fatāwā 'l-Lajnah al-Dā'imah, 5/64, Dār 'l-Mu'ayyad Riyadh, 5th edition, 1424 A.H.): It is not necessary upon anybody to follow a particular school out of these schools; rather… whosoever is unable to derive rulings from the texts etc… he should ask trusted people of knowledge in regards to the rulings of the Sharīʿah…

The Ahnaaf (Hanafis)144 of the Senior Scholars of the Hanafi Madhab who’ve aligned themselves with the position of the majority that the laymen is not obliged to follow a madhab.

The following quotes prove that the concept of forcing or obligating the Taqleed of one scholar or only one group of scholars upon the layman has never been the position of the authorities in Hanafi law. If one subscribes to Hanafi law and yet forces laymen upon this type of restricted Taqleed, then he/she should in turn be forced to admit that:

• he has no explicit precedent from Hanafi heritage that we are aware of,

• his position is that which contradicts the position of the overwhelming majority of scholars, and

• he has no evidence that qualifies the general verse of the Quran, "Ask the People of Dhikr if you do not know" (noting that any such evidence must be of equal strength to the Quran in order to restrict the generality of the verse as mainstream Hanafi Usool 'l-Fiqh suggests)

A. THOSE WHO OBLIGED THE LAYMAN TO EXERCISE TARJĪḤ IN THE PRESENCE OF MULTIPLE SCHOLARS REGARDLESS OF MADHHAB, RATHER THAN OBLIGE ‘TAQLĪD SHAKHṢĪ OF MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’

1. 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.

2. Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī (died 430 A.H.), explaining that even laymen are not completely free from doing Ijtihād, said (Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ, pg. 392 and 410, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1421 A.H.):Taqlīd is of four types: 1) Believing in the Prophet, 2) Believing in a scholar who is qualified to pass verdicts, 3) For the laymen to believe in the scholars of their era, 4) Sons believing their forefathers and minors believing the majors of this world. The first three are correct as they require at least some sort of effort (Istidlāl)...As for those who say that "The truth is only one [in the eyes of Allah in every issue]", he obliged the layman to follow the one Imām who is the most knowledgeable according to [this layman's] own deduction, and does not differ against [his Imām] in anything based his own predilection.

3. Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Arsābandī (died 512 A.H.) in Mukhtaṣar Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ (taken from ál-Jawāhir ál-Muḍiyyaħ Fī Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanafiyyaħ by Abū 'l-Wafā' ál-Qurashī (died 775 A.H.), 3/148, Dār Hajar Giza, 2nd edition 1413 A.H.)

4. ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad ál-Bukhārī (died 730) quoted Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī (died 430 A.H.) (Kashf 'l-Asrār, 4/34, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.)

5. 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].

6. Abū 'l-Faḍl ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad ál-Kirmānī (died 543 A.H.) said (taken from Nūr 'l-ʿAyn Fī Iṣlāḥ Jāmiʿ 'l-Fuṣūlayn by Nishānjī Zādah (died 1031 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7184, pg. 15):If a person passing verdicts is a non-Mujtahid Muqallid, he should take the opinion of the jurist who is the best according to him and reference [his] answer to him. If he is in another city, he should make written correspondence with him. He must not arbitrarily estimate [verdicts] out of fear of lying against Allāh.

7. Abū 'l-Najāḥ Aḥmad bin ʿAlī ál-Manīnī (died 1172 A.H.) quoting from Ibn 'l-Humām's ál-Taḥrīr, said (Ál-ʿAraf ál-Nāsim ʿAlā Risālaŧ 'l-ʿAllāmaħ Ibn Qāsim, Islamic University Madinah manuscript number 29/251, pg. 86): If one is a layman, he would follow the verdict of the Muftī in [that issue] who is the most pious and knowledgeable [according to this layman, and this can be ascertained] via publicity.

 B. THOSE WHO TOLERATED FOR THE MADHHAB-ADHERING LAYMAN TO PRACTICE UPON ‘NON-MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’ VERDICTS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER FROM INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE MADDHAB

8-9. 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).

10-11. 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 Cairo, 1st edition, 1321 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.

12. Regarding ál-Sayyid Abū Shujāʿ Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ḥamzaħ ál-ʿAlawī (died pre-475 A.H.), it is said (taken from Nāẓūraŧ 'l-Ḥaqq Fī Farḍiyyaŧ 'l-ʿIshā' Wa-In Lam Yaghib ál-Shafaq by ál-Marjānī (died 1304 A.H.), pg. 138, Kazan print edition, 1287 A.H.)that he asked Shams 'l-A'immaħ ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin Aḥmad bin Naṣr ál-Ḥalwānī about stopping people from performing prayer at this time [during sunrise]. He responded with this [same answer given by ʿUbayd 'llāh bin Ibrāhīm bin Aḥmad ál-Maḥbūbī.]”

13. 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 ál-Shafaq by, pg. 138, Kazan print edition, 1287 A.H.): 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.”

14. Ál-Ḥasan bin Manṣūr ál-Ūzjandī (died 592 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Qāḍī Khān (printed alongside ál-Fatāwā ál-Hindiyyaħ), 2/453, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 2nd edition, 1310 A.H.):[In fact], an even more relaxed position has been reported from our jurists (May Allāh have mercy on them)... 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. It has [also] been reported from them if a person facing a situation asks a jurist and he replied that the suspension is redundant, he can retain [his wife], and if he married another after [the first]... and asked another jurist... who replied that the suspension was correct and his divorce occurs with [his suspension], then he would separate himself from the second woman, but can still retain the first. This is [all] because the verdict given by a jurist to an ignorant person is tantamount to the verdict of a judge who has been appointed to the case, or the award of an arbiter.

15-16-17. 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' Wa-In Lam Yaghib ál-Shafaq by ál-Marjānī (died 1304 A.H.), pg. 137-138, Kazan print edition, 1287 A.H.): 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].

18. 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.

19. Ibn 'l-Bazzāz Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Shihāb bin Yūsuf ál-Kardarī (died 827 A.H.) said (Ál-Fatāwā ál-Bazzāziyyaħ, pg. 304, British Museum London manuscript):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.

 C. THOSE WHO OBLIGED THE LAYMAN TO EXCERCISE TARJĪḤ IN THE CASE OF CONFLICTING VERDICTS RATHER THAN ADHERE TO THE ‘MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’ OF A MADHHAB

20. Abū 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Qudūrī (died 428 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):When we have established that the layman can perform Ijtihād in choosing Muftis, can he now perform Ijtihād in verdicts themselves in which he is to perform Taqlīd, i.e. if he thinks that a particular verdict of a particular jurist is more stronger, does he have to follow that verdict? Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and ál-Qudūrī differed over this: ál-Qudūrī obligated this...

21. ʿAyn 'l-A'immaħ ʿUmar ál-Karābīsī (died pre-600 A.H.) said (taken from Qunyaŧ 'l-Munyaħ by ál-Zāhidī (died 658 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7382, pg. 93):[If] a [layman] asks two Ḥanafī Muftīs and they pass opposite verdicts, like that of lawfulness and prohibition, or that of correctness and incorrectness, then [he] should take the [negative] verdict in worship, and the [positive] verdict in dealings.

 D. THOSE WHO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A LAYMAN CAN ADOPT ANY SCHOLAR’S OPINION

22. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Ṣaymarī (died 436 A.H.), is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/311-312, ál-Baḥr ál-Muḥīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):Abū Isḥāq ál-Shīrāzī said: A man came to the Ḥanafī jurist ál-Ṣaymarī with the Shāfiʿī verdict that if a marriage representative is a sinner and her husband divorced her thrice that the divorce would not pass, and may marry her with a new contract [as the previous contracted never existed]. Ál-Ṣaymarī said, "They have told you that, all this time, you were with an illegal pudenda, and that she can become legal for you today [with a new contract]! I am telling you that she was legal for you all this time until you divorced her, and now she is illegal for you!" By this, ál-Ṣaymarī intended to sway the layman to the Ḥanafī School. (Abū Isḥāq says) I came to Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and told him he story. He replied, "... but Allāh has not ordained the layman to follow ál-Ṣaymarī; rather he has ordained him to follow any scholar he wishes, so when the layman follows a trustworthy Shāfiʿī, he would have liberated himself of sin and liability until the Day of Judgement."

23. 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.

24. Muẓaffar 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Sāʿātī Aḥmad bin ʿAlī bin Taghlib ál-Baʿlabakkī (died 694 A.H.) said (Badīʿ 'l-Niẓām ál-Jāmiʿ Bayn Kitābay 'l-Bazdawī Wa-'l-Iḥkām, pg. 684-685, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1405 A.H.):If there are multiple Mujtahids, a Muqallid can follow whoever he likes even if [the Mujtahids] differ in status. It is narrated from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that it is necessary [for the Muqallid] to look out for the most preferred [Mujtahid]. Our evidence is that, in the time of the Companions, the lower-ranked [Mujtahids] were – openly and repeatedly – asked for and passed legal verdicts, yet nobody condemned [this practice]...

25. Akmal 'l-Dīn ál-Bābartī (died 786 A.H.) said (Ál-Rudūd Wa-'l-Nuqūd ʿAlā Mukhtaṣar Ibn 'l-Ḥājib, 2/732, Maktabaŧ 'l-Rushd, Riyadh, 1426 A.H. edition): The preferable opinion is that it is permissible [to take another Mujtahid's opinion]... because laymen have always done Taqlīd of one Mujtahid in one issue and another in another issue, and this was never condemned, so therefore this is a consensus on its permissibility.

26. ʿAlī Ibn Abī 'l-ʿIzz ál-Adhraʿī (died 792 A.H.), said (Ál-Ittibāʿ, pg. 80, ál-Maktabaħ ál-Salafiyyaħ, Lahore, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.): The most that can be said is that it is permissible or appropriate or obligatory for the layman to do Taqlīd of one of the Imāms without specification of any Zayd or ʿAmr.

27. Abū Sayf Yaḥyā bin Yūsuf al-Sīrāmī (died 833 A.H.) said (taken from Fatḥ 'llāh al-Muʿīn ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-ʿAllāmah Munlā Miskīn ʿAlā al-Kanz by Abū 'l-Suʿūd al-Ḥusaynī (died 1172 A.H.), 1/6, Maṭbaʿat 'l-Muwayliḥī Cairo, 1st edition, 1287 A.H.): [The meaning of] a Ḥanafī following al-Shāfiʿī in one issue, for example, is an expression of [the Ḥanafī] taking [al-Shāfiʿī’s] opinion whilst remaining on his [own] school. There are two opinions in [this]: permissibility, [which] is the correct and chosen position; and its opposite position [i.e. impermissibility]… The main Muftīs of Egypt agreed with me on [this issue, that a person who affiliates himself to one school can follow a jurist from another school in any particular issue, due to the jurist being possibly correct in the eyes of Allāh].

E. A LIST OF THOSE WHO FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ‘THE MAIN MUFTĪS OF EGYPT’ AS REFERRED TO BY ÁL-SĪRĀMĪ WITHIN THE 660-880 A.H. WINDOW

(taken from: ál-Sulūk Li-Maʿrifaŧ Duwal 'l-Mulūk by ál-Maqrīzī (died 845 A.H.) , Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.; and Ḥusn 'l-Muḥāḍaraħ Fī Akhbār Miṣr Wa-'l-Qāhiraħ by ál-Suyūṭī (died 911 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1056)

28. Abū 'l-Qāsim ʿUmar bin Aḥmad bin Hibaŧ 'llāh bin Muḥammad bin Hibaŧ 'llāh bin Aḥmad bin Yaḥyā bin 'l-ʿAdīm (died 660 A.H.)

29. Abū 'l-Durr Lu'lu' bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'llāh (died 672 A.H.)

30. ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Lu'lu' bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'llāh (died 677 A.H.)

31. Ṣadr 'l-Dīn Sulaymān bin Abī 'l-ʿIzz bin Wuhayb bin ʿAṭā' bin Jubayr bin Jābir bin Wuhayb bin Abī 'l-ʿIzz ál-Adhraʿī (died 677 A.H.)

32. Abū Bakr bin Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Isnawī (died 680 A.H.)

33. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Nuʿmān bin 'l-Ḥasan bin Yūsuf ál-Khaṭībī (died 693 A.H.)

34. Nūr 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Suwaysī ʿAlī bin Naṣr bin ʿUmar (died 695 A.H.)

35. Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm bin Aḥmad bin ʿUqbaħ bin Hibaŧ 'llāh bin ʿAṭā' ál-Dimashqī (died 697 A.H.)

36. Ibn 'l-Naqīb Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin Sulaymān bin Ḥasan ál-Maqdisī (died 698 A.H.)

37. Abū 'l-Faḍā'il ál-Ḥasan bin Aḥmad bin 'l-Ḥasan ál-Rāzī (died 699 A.H.)

38. Shams 'l-Dīn Sulaymān bin Ibrāhīm bin Ismāʿīl ál-Malaṭī (died 703 A.H.)

39. Abū 'l-Ṭāhir Ismāʿīl bin Aḥmad bin Ismāʿīl bin Burayq bin Birʿis ál-Qūṣī (died 715 A.H.)

40. Abū 'l-Fatḥ Naṣr bin Sulaymān bin ʿUmar ál-Manbijī (died 719 A.H.)

41. Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Ibrāhīm bin ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī ál-Sarūjī (died 720 A.H.)

42. Shams 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Ḥarīrī Muḥammad bin ʿUthmān bin ʿAbd 'l-Wahhāb (died 727 A.H.)

43. Fakhr 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Turkumānī ʿUthmān bin Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Sulaymān ál-Mārdīnī (died 731 A.H.)

44. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Balbān ál-Fārisī ál-Amīr (died 739 A.H.)

45. ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm bin ʿAlī bin 'l-Ḥasan bin Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Azīz bin Muḥammad bin 'l-Furāt (died 741 A.H.)

46. ʿUthmān bin ʿAlī bin Miḥjan al-Bāriʿī al-Zaylaʿī (died 743 A.H.) said (Tabyīn 'l-Ḥaqā'iq Sharḥ Kanz 'l-Daqā'iq, 1/142, al-Maṭbaʿaħ al-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1313 A.H.): If a follower of Abū Ḥanīfah in [the obligation of] the Odd [Prayer] prayed behind a follower of Abū Yūsuf [in its non-obligation], it would be permissible due to the unison of prayer. [Their prayer] is not different [just] because of the difference in belief [of prayer i.e. whether it is an obligation or not].

47. Tāj 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Turkumānī Aḥmad bin ʿUthmān bin Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Sulaymān ál-Mārdīnī (died 744 A.H.)

48. Ibn ʿAbd 'l-Ḥaqq Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm bin ʿAlī bin Aḥmad bin ʿAlī ál-Wāsiṭī (died 744 A.H.)

49. Izz 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Turkumānī ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin ʿAlī bin ʿUthmān bin Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Sulaymān ál-Mārdīnī (died 749 A.H.)

50. Abū Muḥammad Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-Qādir bin Aḥmad bin Maktūm ál-Qaysī (died 749 A.H.)

51. ʿAlā' 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Turkumānī ʿAlī bin ʿUthmān bin Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Sulaymān ál-Mārdīnī (died 750 A.H.)

52. Abū 'l-Fidā' Ismāʿīl bin ʿUthmān bin 'l-Muʿallim ál-Qurashī (died 755 A.H.)

53. Qiwām 'l-Dīn ál-Itqānī Amīr Kātib bin Amīr Umar bin Amīr Ghāzī (died 758 A.H.)

54. Jamāl 'l-Dīn Khalīl bin ʿUthmān ál-Zawlī (died 762 A.H.)

55. Ibn 'l-Sirāj Muḥammad bin ʿUmar bin Maḥmūd (died 766 A.H.)

56. Jamāl 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Turkumānī ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAlī bin ʿUthmān bin Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Sulaymān ál-Mārdīnī (died 769 A.H.)

57. Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī Bakr ál-Bisṭāmī (died 771 A.H.)

58. Shihāb 'l-Dīn Ibn Zubaybaħ Aḥmad bin Ibrāhīm bin ʿUmar ál-Ṣāliḥī (died 772 A.H.)

59. Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar bin Isḥāq bin Aḥmad ál-Ghaznawī (died 773 A.H.)

60. Abū 'l-Thanā' Maḥmūd bin Quṭlushāh ál-Sīrāmī (died 775 A.H.)

61. Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd 'l-Qādir bin Muḥammad bin Naṣr 'llāh bin Sālim bin Abi 'l-Wafā' ál-Qurashī (died 775 A.H.)

62. Shams 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Ṣā'igh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin ʿAlī (died 776 A.H.)

63. Ṣadr 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Turkumānī Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAlī bin ʿUthmān bin Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Sulaymān ál-Mārdīnī (died 776 A.H.)

64. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Maḥmūd bin Muḥammad bin Maḥmūd ál-Naysābūrī Jār 'llāh (died 782 A.H.)

65. Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin ʿAlī bin Manṣūr ál-Dimashqī (died 782 A.H.)

66. ʿAlā' 'l-Dīn Aḥmad bin Muḥammad ál-Sīrāmī (died 790 A.H.)

67. Abū Muḥammad ʿUthmān bin Sulaymān bin Rasūl bin Amīr Yūsuf bin Khalīl bin Nūḥ ál-Karrānī ál-Ashqar (died 791 A.H.)

68. Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin ʿAlī bin Manṣūr ál-Dimashqī (died 792 A.H.)

69. Jalāl 'l-Dīn Rasūlā bin Aḥmad bin Yūsuf ál-ʿAjamī (died 793 A.H.)

70. ʿIzz 'l-Dīn Yūsuf bin Maḥmūd bin Muḥammad ál-ʿAjamī (died 794 A.H.)

71. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-Qalījī (died 797 A.H.)

72. Shams 'l-Dīn Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Abī Bakr ál-Ṭarābalusī (died 799 A.H.)

73. Jamāl 'l-Dīn Maḥmūd bin Muḥammad ál-ʿAjamī (died 799 A.H.)

74. Najm 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Kishk Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Ismāʿīl bin Muḥammad bin Abī 'l-ʿIzz bin Ṣāliḥ bin Abī 'l-ʿIzz bin Wuhayb bin ʿAṭā' bin Jubayr bin Jābir bin Wuhayb bin Abī 'l-ʿIzz ál-Adhraʿī (died 799 A.H.)

75. Badr 'l-Dīn Maḥmūd bin ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Kulastānī (died 801 A.H.)

76. Abū 'l-Fidā' Ismāʿīl bin Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin ʿAlī bin Mūsā ál-Bilbīsī (died 802 A.H.)

77. Abū 'l-Maḥāsin Yūsuf bin Mūsā bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Malaṭī (died 803 A.H.)

78. Abū Yaḥyā Yūsuf bin Muḥammad bin ʿĪsā ál-Sīrāmī (died 810 A.H.)

79. Muḥibb 'l-Dīn Ibn 'l-Shiḥnaħ Abū 'l-Walīd Muḥammad bin Muḥammad ál-Ḥalabī (died 815 A.H.)

80. Amīn 'l-Dīn ʿAbd 'l-Wahhāb bin Muḥammad bin Abī Bakr ál-Ṭarābalusī (died 819 A.H.)

81. Abū Ibrāhīm Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Saʿd ál-Dayrī (died 827 A.H.)

82. Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar bin ʿAlī bin Fāris ál-Kinānī (died 829 A.H.)

XX. Abū Sayf Yaḥyā bin Yūsuf ál-Sīrāmī (died 833 A.H.)

83. Abū Hurayraħ ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin ʿAlī bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān ál-Tafahnī (died 835 A.H.)

84. Badr 'l-Dīn ál-ʿAynī Abū Muḥammad Maḥmūd bin Aḥmad bin Mūsā bin Aḥmad bin Ḥusayn bin Yūsuf bin Maḥmūd (died 855 A.H.)

XX. Ibn 'l-Humām (died 861 A.H.)

85. Abū 'l-Saʿādāt Saʿd bin Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Saʿd bin Abī Bakr bin Muṣliḥ ál-Dayrī (died 866 A.H.)

86. Burhān 'l-Dīn Ibrāhīm bin ʿAlī bin Aḥmad bin Yazīd ál-Dayrī (died 872 A.H.)

87. Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥasan ál-Shamanī (died 872 A.H.)

XX. Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj (died 879 A.H.)

88. Amīn 'l-Dīn Yaḥyā bin Muḥammad ál-Aqṣarā'ī (died 880 A.H.)…] agreed with me on [the issue that a person who affiliates himself to one school can follow a jurist from another school in any particular issue, due to the jurist being possibly correct in the eyes of Allāh].

89. Qarq Amīr ál-Ḥamīdī (died 860 A.H.), author of Jāmiʿ 'l-Fatāwā (manuscript), said (taken from ál-Inṣāf by Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.)):If a [layman practicing] Ḥanafī [law] said, ‘If I marry so and so, she is divorced three times’, then he asked a Shāfiʿī [scholar about his], and he told him that she would not be divorced should he marry her, [stating] that his statement was redundant, there would be no problem [for the layman] in following ál-Shāfiʿī in this issue, because there are many Companions of this opinion.

90. Ibn 'l-Humām (died 861 A.H.), commentator on ál-Marghīnānī’s ál-Hidāyaħ, said (Fatḥ 'l-Qadīr, 7/238-239, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):If this ‘adhering to’ is meant, then [realise that] there is no legal evidence that obligates following one particular Mujtahid by virtue of obligating it upon one’s own self either via explicating it or by intending it; rather such an obligation is only via evidence and the necessity of implementing the ruling of the Mujtahid in what arises for him as is pointed out in the verse of ‘Ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know’, and [the obligation of] ‘asking’ only arises when the particular

situation [requiring the ruling] arises. In this case, if the Mujtahid’s verdict is established to him, he must implement it. Usually, such self-obligations [of adhering to a school or a Mujtahid] are done due to prevent people from following up specifically on dispensations; otherwise the layman would take the easiest opinion in every issue. However, I don’t know what logic or legal text actually prohibits this, and I don’t know of any condemnation from the law against a person who follows up on dispensations via the verdicts of qualified Mujtahids who can be followed. Also, the Prophet loved to make it affairs easy for his believing community.

91. Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj (died 879 A.H.) - explaining "The layman not possessing a school" - said (Ál-Taqrīr Wa-'l-Taḥbīr, 3/350, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1316 A.H.): ... because a school is only for that person who has a degree of analysis, ability to evidence and have an insight of the schools as he is capable, or one who read a text on the legal issues of that school and becomes acquainted with the verdicts of his Imām and his statements... As the layman is ignorant of the modus operandi of the Imām of the school he is ascribing himself to, and as long as he is ignorant of his methodology, how can this layman ascribe himself to the Imām's school? To the contrary, his ascription to a school would be a mere claim, and it would be a statement that is void of any real meaning... There is consensus that a Muslim can do Taqlīd of whichever scholar he wishes without restriction. Whoever says anything to the contrary, the burden of proof is on them... It is not correct for a layman to ascribe himself to a school. Such a person would not be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī, even if he claims to be a Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbalī... If a layman took it upon himself to follow one school, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ, Malik, ál-Shāfi'ī or Ahmed, it would not be obligatory upon him to adhere to that school, because Allāh made no such obligations upon him, nor did Allāh or His Prophet ever ordered anyone to adopt a school.

92. Yūsuf bin Ḥusayn ál-Kirmāstī (died 906 A.H.) said (Ál-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 318, Dār 'l-Hudā Cairo, 1st edition, 1404 A.H.)[What is preferred is] the permissibility for a Muqallid to follow a lesser Mujtahid when there is a multitude of Mujtahids of differing levels [in their skill and knowledge]. It is however reported from Aḥmad and Ibn Surayj that [asking] the best [Mujtahid] is binding on that layman. And when a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in an issue, he cannot discard it in favour of a [different opinion in the same issue] by agreement [of the scholars]. As for the opinion of [another Mujtahid] in another issue [that is separate from the issue in which he has already implemented one the opinion of one Mujtahid], the preferred opinion is that it is permissible to follow that other scholar.

93. Ibn Nujaym (died 970 A.H.), the commentator on Kanz 'l-Daqā'iq, said (Ál-Baḥr ál-Rā'iq, 6/292, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-ʿIlmiyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1311 A.H.)Chapter: "It is permissible to follow any Mujtahid one wishes", even when the schools of law are compiled (as is the case today), and he can also change from his [previously-adopted] legal position, but not out of constantly following up on dispensations...

94. Muḥammad Ḥayāt ál-Sindī (died 1163 A.H.), footnoting on Ibn Nujaym’s statement, said (Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Anām, pg. 56, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.): 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...

95. Amīr Bādshāh (died 972 A.H.?) reproduced the Ibn Amīr 'l-Hājj's words in the other commentary of ál-Taḥrīr (4/253, Taysīr 'l-Taḥrīr, Maktabaŧ 'l-Maʿārif, Riyadh, 1403 A.H.).

96. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Tumurtāshī (died 1004 A.H.) said (Muʿīn 'l-Muftī ʿAlā Jawāb 'l-Mustaftī, Imām Muḥammad bin Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 2052): It is permissible [for a Muqallid] to follow a lesser Mujtahid [even] in the presence of a better Mujtahid. Aḥmad and many jurists, however, do not allow this. The first opinion is based on the fact that lesser Companions used to be asked for legal rulings [by lay Muslims in the presence of greater Companions, and this was done] without any condemnation levelled at the questioner... and on that a layman cannot execute preference [between multiple Mujtahids].

97. 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-Ḥaqīqaħ Istanbul, 1420 A.H.): 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.

98. 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”...

99. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAẓīm ál-Makkī (died 1061 A.H.) said (Ál-Qawl ál-Sadīd Fī Baʿḍ Masā'il 'l-Ijtihād Wa-'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 301789, pg. 4)Know that Abū Hanīfaħ, Mālik, ál-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad bin Ḥanbal are all the People of Knowledge who must be asked and followed by whom who is not a Mujtahid. If any Muqallid implements in his purity or prayer or anything else the opinion of any one of these, either out of Taqlīd, or without even knowing he had implemented it when he was doing what he did... then he would have discharged his obligation. No Muqallid or even Mujtahid can condemn him for doing so, as has been well documented in more than one book as is the case according to us [Ḥanafīs]...

100. Ḥasan bin ʿAmmār ál-Shurunbulālī (died 1069 A.H.) said (Ál-ʿIqd ál-Farīd Li-Bayān 'l-Rājiḥ Min 'l-Khilāf Fī Jawāz 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 324506, pg. 11):... because [a layman's] adherence [to one Mujtahid] is not something that is legally obligated...

101. Aḥmad bin Muḥammad ál-Ḥamawī (died 1098), the commentator on Ibn Nujaym’s ál-Ashbāh Wa-'l-Naẓā'ir, said (Ál-Durr ál-Farīd Fī Bayān Ḥukm 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 327244, pg. 9):It is gained from what we have said that a person does not have to adhere to one particular school...

102-103. 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 Cairo, 1st edition, 1324 A.H.): 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).)

104. ʿAbd 'l-Ghanī bin Ismāʿīl ál-Nābalusī (died 1143 A.H.) said (Nihāyaŧ 'l-Murād Fī Sharḥ Hadiyyaŧ Ibn 'l-ʿImād, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6918, pg. 122): As for placing necessity as a prerequisite for a Ḥanafī to follow another Imām, you have already learned previously that this [prerequisite is placed] for preserve [oneself] from following dispensations across the legal schools. Otherwise, necessity in itself is not necessary for following [any one of] the Four Imāms [outside of his Madhhab of practise] once the prerequisites of their respective schools’ legal rulings are fulfilled [when implementing those rulings]. This is because a legally-bound person has a choice of following any one of them in any situation that may arise – as stated before – without the need for [this legally-bound person] to prefer one [Imām’s] deduction over another [Imām’s] deduction.

105. Shāh Waliyyullāh (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Inṣāf): ... if he is in the Ḥaramayn [or any place where there are scholars of multiple schools, then he may ask any scholar]...

106. 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 ál-Shafaq, pg. 33, Kazan print edition, 1287 A.H.): 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.

107. Khwājah Zādah Muḥammad Rāsim ál-Malaṭī (died 1316 A.H.) said (Minjāŧ 'l-Wuṣūl Sharḥ Mirqāŧ 'l-Uṣūl, Istanbul University manuscript number 2172, pg. 294): In the case of multiple Mujtahids, it is permissible to follow the lesser in favour of the greater, even when the greater in passing verdicts is present. It has been said that the greater in passing verdicts would become binding [and should be followed], and it would not [even] be permissible for the lesser to pass verdicts in [the greater's] presence.

108. ʿAbd 'l-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddaħ (died 1417 A.H.) quoted Ibn Amīr 'l-Ḥājj (footnotes of ál-Iḥkām by ál-Qarāfī (died 684 A.H.), pg. 231, Maktab 'l-Maṭbūʿāt ál-Islāmiyyaħ Aleppo, 2nd edition, 1416 A.H.): If [a layman] adopts a particular school of law, like that of Abū Hanīfaħ or ál-Shāfiʿī, then it has been said: "It will be upon him to adhere to it". It has [also] been said: "[It will] not [be upon him to adhere to it]", and this is more correct. [COLOR]

 F. THOSE WHO PROHIBITED A LAYMAN TO DISCARD A VERDICT HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT MAY BE ‘MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’ OR NOT

109. 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].

110. 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 passé 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.

111. Ibrāhīm bin Ḥusayn Bīrī Zādah (died 1099 A.H.), footnoting of the statement of ál-Ṣadr ál-Shahīd, said (Dafʿ 'l-Ḍarar Fī ál-Tarakhkhuṣ Bi-Ta'khīr 'l-Ṣalāħ Fī 'l-Safar, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451):Understand that this person is not adhering to the position of the first scholar, but rather only followed him in one issue.

112. 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].

113. 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.

114. Muḥammad bin Ḥamzaħ ál-Fanārī (died 834 A.H.) said (Fuṣūl 'l-Badā'iʿ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Sharā'iʿ, 2/498, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1427 A.H.):A layman who has implemented a Mujtahid’s opinion in a particular issue cannot – by agreement – discard it in favour of another [opinion]. As for another issue [in which this layman has not implemented any opinion], the preferred position is the permissibility of following another [Mujtahid] due to its definite, widespread and well-known occurrence without

condemnation in the era of the Companions (may God be pleased with them) [and] without being forced to ask one Muftī only. As for when one [wishes to] adhere to a particular school like that of Abū Ḥanīfaħ (may God be pleased with him), it has been said has it would be binding [upon him to adhere to it]. It has [also] been said that it [still] not be binding upon him [i.e.] he cannot discard [the verdict] of [the Imām he wishes to adhere to] in those scenarios that have occurred and he has followed him, [but] he may follow whomever he wishes in any other [scenario] apart from [what he has already practised upon an opinion in].

115. Muḥammad bin ʿAlī ál-Ḥaṣkafī (died 1088) said (Ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār Sharḥ Tanwīr 'l-Abṣār, pg. 16, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.):To discard what one has already implemented via following [a scholar] is - by agreement - illegal, and this is the preferred position of the [Ḥanafī] School.

116. Abū Saʿīd Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā ál-Khādimī (died 1176 A.H.) said (Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, Azhar University Cairo manuscript number 304849, pg. 48): When a layman implements the opinion of a Mujtahid in any given scenario, he may not defect to [another Mujtahid's verdict, and this is] agreed upon. As for [taking another Mujtahid's opinion] in another legal scenario, the preferred position is that of permissibility.

117. Muḥammad bin Muṣṭafā (was alive 1246 A.H.) agreed with ál-Khādimī (Manāfiʿ 'l-Daqā'iq Sharḥ Majāmiʿ 'l-Ḥaqā'iq, pg. 304, Dār 'l-�ibāʿāħ ál-ʿĀmiraħ Istanbul edition, 1306 A.H.)

118. Ibrāhīm bin Muṣṭafā bin Ibrāhīm ál-Ḥalabī (died 1190 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-Ḥalabī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 3495, pg. 6): The example [of the impermissibility of discarding what one has already implemented as a Muqallid] is a Ḥanafī following Mālik in marriage via announcement [but] without witnesses, who then wishes to discard following [Mālik after the marriage contract by not giving the marriage gift (Mahr) to his wife based on the Ḥanafī position]. He cannot do so [as this would lead to the severe type of Talfīq in which both schools agree the marriage is invalid].

In the commentary of this statement, the following was stated:119. Abū ʿĀṣim Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-ʿĀmirī (died around 400 A.H.) (taken from Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-�ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār by ál-�ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.), King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50-51) used to pass verdicts by the door of [ál-Qāsim bin Muḥammad] ál-Qaffāl's [a Shāfiʿī - died around 400 A.H.] mosque. The [Shāfiʿī] muezzin [once] called for prayer, so [ál-ʿĀmirī] left [his place] and entered the mosque. When ál-Qaffāl saw him, he ordered the muezzin to double the prayer announcement (i.e. the Iqāmaħ) [as per the Ḥanafī position] and put forward the judge [i.e. Abū ʿĀṣim ál-Āmirī to lead prayer]. He stepped forward [to lead], read Basmallaħ aloud and performed prayer in the Shāfiʿī manner.

120. Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ismāʿīl ál-�ahṭāwī (died 1231 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ 'l-�ahṭāwī ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6242, pg. 50): What is impermissible is to discard [the ruling one has already implemented] in a past scenario [that occurred to him], not a scenario of the same genre that would occur in the future.

121. Ibn ʿĀbidīn (died 1252 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyaŧ Ibn ʿĀbidīn ʿAlā ál-Durr ál-Mukhtār, 4/598, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition, 1415 A.H.):

When a questioner implements the verdict of a Muftī in one situation, then another [Muftī] gave him a verdict different to that of the first, he cannot break his action in that situation [based on the second verdict]. However, he may implement [the verdict of the second Muftī] in another situation. For example, a person performs Ẓuhr after touching an alien woman by following Abū Ḥanīfaħ [that ablution does not break], then he [wished to] follow ál-Shāfiʿī [that ablution breaks, and this was after having performed the day’s Ẓuhr], he cannot nullify that Ẓuhr, but he can follow the verdict of ál-Shāfiʿī for another [day’s] Ẓuhr. This is what is meant by the statement of those who say ‘A Muqallid cannot discard his legal position.’

 G. THOSE WHO ACKNOWLEDGED THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER A MADHHAB-ADHERING LAYMAN IS OBLIGED TO ADHERE TO HIS MADHHAB OR NOT

122. ʿAbd 'l-Sayyid ál-Khaṭībī (died 489 A.H.) said (taken from ál-Jawāhir ál-Muḍiyyaħ Fī Ṭabaqāt 'l-Ḥanafiyyaħ by Abū 'l-Wafā' ál-Qurashī (died 775), 2/425-426, Dār Hajar Giza, 2nd edition 1413 A.H.)was asked regarding the one who suspended three divorces upon marrying her, then was told that it would not occur according to the opinion of ál-Shāfiʿī, so he took his opinion on the basis that ál-Shāfiʿī is a reliable Mujtahid – can he stay with her or not [after marrying her, since the Ḥanafī position is that three divorces would automatically occur upon marriage]. He replied: “According to our ʿIrāqī Mashāyikh, yes; according to our Khurāsānī Mashāyikh, no.”

123. ʿUmar bin Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Āmidī (died 1200 A.H.?) said (Sharḥ 'l-Wajīz Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, King ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz Library Madinah manuscript number 1096):Amongst these issues is the topic of the permissibility [or impermissibility] of exiting one particular school to another after having taken it upon oneself to adhere to [the first]. [The first position] is that it is not permissible, as he has taken it upon himself to adhere [to it], even though the act of adherence is not obligatory itself was not obligatory [upon him] in the first place. [The other opinion] is that it is permissible, and to adhere to what one takes upon oneself is not binding. [The third opinion] is that it is impermissible in some issues and permissible in others – a middle path between the [first] two opinions: so it would be permissible in those issues in which he has not practised upon the opinion [of the school he has taken upon himself to adhere to, and this is based on] what has just been mentioned in regards to the practise of the non-adhering [Muqallid].

 H. THOSE WHO DID NOT OBLIGE A MUQALLID JUDGE TO ADHERE TO THE ‘MUFTĀ BI-HĪ’ OF HIS MADHHAB

124-125. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Khalīl ál-Ṭarābalusī (died 844 A.H.) quoted Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ʿUmar ál-Nāṭifī (died 446 A.H.) who said (Muʿīn 'l-Ḥukkām by, pg. 30, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Maymaniyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1310 A.H.):A scholar passes verdict according to the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfaħ; another according to the opinion of Abū Yūsuf; another according to the opinion of Muḥammad or Zufar; [whatever the difference of opinion within the Ḥanafī School, the non-Mujtahid judge] cannot take the opinion of ál-Shāfiʿī or Mālik [when passing judgement].

126. 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...

127. Abū 'l-Thanā' Maḥmūd bin Zayd ál-Lāmishī (was alive 539 A.H.) said (pg. 201, Kitāb Fī Usūl 'l-Fiqh, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, A.H.):When he reaches this limit that we have mentioned, it would be legal for him to pass legal verdicts to whoever questions him via his personal opinion and Ijtihād. But if he has not reached this level and was asked in an issue, then he may answer if he knows the statement of the predecessors, otherwise not.

128. 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.

129. Abū 'l-Thanā' Maḥmūd bin ʿAbd 'llāh al-Ālūsī al-Baghdādī (died 1270 A.H.) said (Rūḥ 'l-Maʿānī Fī Tafsīr 'l-Qur'ān al-ʿAẓīm Wa-'l-Sabʿ al-Mathānī, 4/24, Dār Iḥyā' 'l-Turāth al-ʿArabī Beirut, 4th edition, 1405 A.H.):… [F]or an ignorant person, we allow following [as well as] taking dispensations from the statements of scholars during need [but] without continuously searching [for them].

130. Muḥammad Bakhīt al-Muṭīʿī (died 1354 A.H.) quoted extensively from Ibn 'l-Humām and al-Sahālawī on the matter in his footnotes on Nihāyaŧ 'l-Sūl Fī Sharḥ Minhāj 'l-Uṣūl by al-Isnawī (died 772 A.H.) (http://ia700307.us.archive.org/17/it...smo/nssmo0.pdf)

131. Abū 'l-ʿAdl Qāsim bin Quṭlūbughā al-Miṣrī (died 879 A.H.) said:All the scholars of Uṣūl said, “It is by agreement incorrect to withdraw from following post-action”, and that is the chosen position of the school. [Al-Subkī al-Shāfiʿī (died 756 A.H.)] said… “By having [chosen to] adhere to the position of an Imām, he is responsible for [adhereing to] it as long as another [position] does not become transparent to him; it would [never] become transparent to the one following… It is by consensus incorrect to follow in a [ruling] that is combined of two mutually-conflicting pieces of Ijtihād.” The example they gave for this is when one performs ablution and wipes some of his head, then performs prayer with the [remnants] of a dog. (Al-Taṣḥīḥ Wa-'l-Tarjīḥ ʿAlā Mukhtaṣar 'l-Qudūrī, pg. 122-123, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.)If something occurs for a Muqallid, he should practice according to the requirement of his Imām’s verdict if that situation is specific to him only. If there are two opinions [narrated from the

Imām], he should practice according to the requirement of the authentic position of his Imām. If there are contradictory authentications, he should practice upon the verdict of the more knowledgeable and more God-fearing [authenticator]. If all are the same, he would have a choice in choosing which verdict he likes according to the Shāfiʿīs, and according to us he would have to present the case to a third Muftī even if he is in a different city. (Majmūʿ Rasā'il Qāsim Ibn Qutlūbughā, Ḥukm 'l-Khulʿ Wa-Ḥukm 'l-Ḥanbalī Fīh, Princeton University Library New Jersey, manuscript number GARRETT 3393 Y, pg. 114)

132. Khayr 'l-Dīn bin Aḥmad bin ʿAlī al-Ramlī (died 1081 A.H.), quoting Ibn 'l-Humām (died 861 A.H.), said (taken from al-La'ālī al-Durriyyah Fī al-Fawā'id al-Khayriyyah by his son Muḥammad (died 1113 A.H.), 1/16, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1300 A.H.): Legally speaking, there is no evidence for the obligation of following a specified Mujtahid [just] by one forcing it upon oneself [either] verbally or in intention.

133. Muḥammad bin Khayr 'l-Dīn bin Aḥmad bin ʿAlī al-Ramlī (died 1113 A.H.), recorded his father's (1081 A.H.) verdict (Al-La'ālī al-Durriyyah Fī al-Fawā'id al-Khayriyyah, 1/16, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1300 A.H.)

134. Abū 'l-Barakāt Nuʿmān bin Maḥmūd bin ʿAbd 'llāh al-Ālūsī al-Baghdādī (died 1317 A.H.), quoting from Ibn ʿĀbidīn (died 1252 A.H.), said (Jilā' 'l-ʿAynayn Bi-Muḥākamat 'l-Aḥmadayn, pg. 185-186, al-Maktabah al-ʿAṣriyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1427 A.H.): It is mentioned in al-Taḥrīr [by Ibn 'l-Humām]… “… It is concluded from what we have mentioned that a person does not have to adhere to a specific school, and that it is permissible for him to act against what he practised in accordance to his school, in which he [would] follow another Imām [by ensuring] he [has implemented the opinion’s] prerequisites…”

135. 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.

136. ʿAlī bin ʿAlī Iskandar al-Ḥusaynī al-Sīwāsī (died 1148 A.H.), explaining the preference of al-Sīrāmī (died 833 A.H.), said (taken from Fatḥ 'llāh al-Muʿīn ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-ʿAllāmah Munlā Miskīn ʿAlā al-Kanz by his son by Abū 'l-Suʿūd al-Azharī (died 1172 A.H.), 1/6, Maṭbaʿat 'l-Muwayliḥī Cairo, 1st edition, 1287 A.H.): The reason [given] for its impermissibility is that it results in the action of the Ḥanafī being in accordance to what is incorrect ([though] potentially correct) in his belief. The reason for the first position [i.e. permissibility of switching] is the sufficing of its permissibility on [believing that opinion] to be correct according to the [non-Ḥanafī] Mujtahid whose opinion is to be taken [by the Ḥanafī, and the possibility of its correctness] being weightier [in the non-Ḥanafī Mujtahid’s estimation] than the possibility of it being an error.

137. Abū 'l-Suʿūd Muḥammad bin ʿAlī bin ʿAlī al-Ḥusaynī al-Azharī (died 1172 A.H.) said (Fatḥ 'llāh al-Muʿīn ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-ʿAllāmah Munlā Miskīn ʿAlā al-Kanz, 1/6, Maṭbaʿat 'l-Muwayliḥī Cairo, 1st edition, 1287 A.H.):

What is gained from the statement of al-Sīrāmī… and also what has passed from Ibn 'l-Munlā Farrūkh al-Makkī… is that the obligation of a person is to follow one [Imām] without specification…

138. Muḥammad ʿAlā' 'l-Dīn ʿĀbidīn bin Muḥammad Amīn al-Dimashqī (died 1206 A.H.) said (Al-Hadiyyah al-ʿAlā'iyyah, pg. 242, Dār Ibn Ḥazm Beirut, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.): A layman does not have a position [of his own]. His position is his jurisconsult’s position. It is permissible to follow the lesser scholar in the presence of the superior scholar… It is not necessary on a man to follow a particular school.

139. Munīb bin Maḥmūd bin Muṣṭafā al-Hāshimī al-Jaʿfarī al-Nābalusī (died 1343 A.H.) said in his al-Qawl al-Sadīd Fī Aḥkām 'l-Taqlīd (taken from ʿUmdat 'l-Taḥqīq Fī al-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by al-Bānī (died 1351 A.H.), pg. 204, Dār 'l-Qādirī Damascus, 2nd edition, 1418 A.H.): What has become apparent for this weak slave is that there is no text from any Mujtahid or scholar of Takhrīj in the Nuʿmānī School preventing mixing up…

140. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān ʿĪd al-Maḥallāwī (died post-1340 A.H.) said (Tasḣīl 'l-Wuṣūl Ilā ʿIlm 'l-Uṣūl, pg. 326, Maṭbaʿat Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī Cairo, 1st edition, 1341 A.H.): It is not obligatory on the layman to adhere to a particular school in every situation. If he adheres to a specific school, like the school of Abū Ḥanīfah (may Allāh have mercy on him), it would not be obligatory on him to continue with it; rather it would be permissible for him to switch to the school of another [Imām]. This is the truth, because the difference of scholars is a mercy [as proven] by text; if we made it necessary on the layman to act on [only] one school out of the schools, this would be a cruelty. When a layman – who has no degree of analysis or evidentiary capability, and has not read up on the subsidiaries of a school – says “I am a Ḥanafī”, he would not become as such by mere claim.

141. Muḥammad Salīm al-Āmidī al-Bukhārī (died 1347 A.H.) commissioned al-Bānī (died 1351 A.H.) to write an answer to a question on following and mixing up (See ʿUmdat 'l-Taḥqīq Fī al-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq, pg. 50, Dār 'l-Qādirī Damascus, 2nd edition, 1418 A.H.)

142. Muḥammad Saʿīd bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān al-Bānī (died 1351 A.H.) said (ʿUmdat 'l-Taḥqīq Fī al-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq, pg. 104, 166, 168, and 169, Dār 'l-Qādirī Damascus, 2nd edition, 1418 A.H.): But the jurists of our era curtailed [this mercy], and made restrictions against the people following scholars in what the legislature had left unrestricted for them. So they told the follower if he was of the Ḥanafī School, “Do not seek the dispensation of al-Shāfiʿī in what befalls you”, and likewise to every one of [the followers of other schools]. This is from the greatest of disasters in the religion and [in removing] difficulty. Allāh says, “And He did not place any difficulty upon you in the religion” [Al-Ḥajj, 78]. The legislature has set out that the ruling of the Mujtahid is for himself and for the one following him, but the jurists of out era rejected that and thought that would lead to playing around with the religion. This is the epitome of ignorance on their part. The matter, by Allāh, is not as they thought, despite their own acknowledgement against themselves that they are not Mujtahids, nor have reached the status of Ijtihād, nor have reported from their Imāms that they went down this route [of restricting followers in whom they follow]. As thus, they have falsified themselves in their statement that they do not have the ability to undertake Ijtihād, whereas their placing of restrictions upon followers can only be achieved via Ijtihād. We seek Allāh’s refuge from blindness and humiliation... I say that [the adoption of a school not being an obligation on the follower] is what comes to mind from

religious and logical perspectives… As for totally prohibiting switching [between schools], it is a form of bigotry, and religious legislation… Even if it was accepted [that adherence to a school comes only on the back of the belief that the school is most likely to be correct], then this belief is not [something that] rose from legal evidence; rather it is from the fantasies of [any such] person believing [this], and it is not obligatory to remain on one’s fantasy.

143. Muḥammad Zāhid bin 'l-Ḥasan al-Kawtharī (died 1371 A.H.) said (Iḥqāq 'l-Ḥaqq Bi-Ibṭāl 'l-Bāṭil Fī Mughīth 'l-Khalq, pg. 22, al-Maktabah al-Azhariyyah Cairo, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.): Giving a choice to the questioner as was permissible in the era of the Companions, with the condition of not constantly seeking out dispensations, would be a fortiori permissible for those after them.

144. Abū 'l-Ashbāl Aḥmad bin Muḥammad Shākir al-Qāhirī (died 1377 A.H.) said (Jamharat Maqālāt 'l-ʿAllāmah Aḥmad Shākir – compiled by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān al-ʿAql, 2/863, Dār 'l-Riyāḍ Cairo, 1st edition, 1426 A.H.): There is not any evidence for the obligation of following a school out of the Four Schools.

The Maalikis51 Leading scholars from the Maliki madhaab who do not obligate following a madhaab.

1. Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd 'llāh Ibn Abī Zayd ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān ál-Qayrawānī (died 386 A.H.) said (taken from Jāmiʿ Masā'il 'l-Aḥkām by ál-Burzulī (died 841 A.H.), 1/63, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.):There are some who say that the questioner when questioning to inquire about the difference of the scholars can choose for himself whichever position he likes, like a man who enters the

mosque and finds Abū Muṣʿab in one gathering, Ibn Wahb in another, and others likewise, then he may go to whomever he likes and ask him.

2. Ibn 'l-Qaṣṣār Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin ʿUmar ál-Baghdādī (died 397 A.H.) said (Muqaddimaħ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 160-162, Dār 'l-Maʿlamaħ Riyadh, 1st edition 1420 A.H.):According to Mālik, when a layman intends to ask for ruling, it is obligatory upon him to exercise a degree of Ijtihād, which for him is to go to the people of that knowledge regarding which he intends to ask. He does not have to ask everyone he meets; rather when he is guided to a jurist, he should look at his disposition and experience in his field, and he should inquire about his level of knowledge and trustworthiness. If there is a higher person [in knowledge] in that [issue], he should ask him and accept his position and ruling, as this would be more appropriate for the sake of his religion, and it would be more assuring for him in his affair with the Sharīʿaħ in terms of [the correctness of the verdict]. This [scenario] would be like two narrations or analogies conflicting in the eyes of a scholar, requiring of him to execute preference between the two and so he proceeds – likewise the layman [when faced with] multiple jurisconsults.

3. Regarding Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Bāqillānī (died 402 A.H.), ál-Ghazālī (died 505 A.H.) said (Ál-Mustaṣfā, 2/391, ál-Maṭbaʿaħ ál-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1324 A.H.):As for when one of the two [jurists] is superior and more knowledgeable, ál-Qāḍī [ál-Bāqillānī] chose that he can choose as well, because the lesser [jurist] would have been from those capable of Ijtihād when alone, so likewise when [in the presence of] another [jurist who is more superior to him], as [such] superiority has no effect.

4. Abū ʿImrān Mūsā bin ʿĪsā ál-Zanātī ál-Fāsī (died 430 A.H.) said (taken from ál-Dhakhīraħ by ál-Qarāfī (died 684 A.H.), 1/140, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.):It is permissible to follow the schools in the legal issues, and to switch from one school to another meeting three prerequisites: that he does not combine them into a scenario that conflicts with consensus (like one who married without the marriage gift, representative and witnesses, as nobody has opined for [the permissibility of] this scenario); that he believes in the good reputation of the one whom he is following, [and this would be achieved] by his reports reaching him, and that he does not follow him as a blind pot-shot; and that he does not follow up on the dispensations of the schools.

5. Abū 'l-Walīd Sulaymān bin Khalaf ál-Bājī (died 474 A.H.) said (Iḥkām 'l-Fuṣūl Fī Aḥkām 'l-Uṣūl, 2/735-736, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 2nd edition, 1415 A.H.):If it so happens that there is only one jurist in the city, his obligation would be to take his opinion. If there are multiple jurists in the city, and some are more proficient than others, he may take the opinion of whomsoever he wishes. A group of scholars said, “He must take the opinion of the best of them”, but this is not correct.

6. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ál-Lakhmī ʿAlī bin Muḥammad ál-Rabaʿī ál-Qayrawānī (died 478 A.H.) said (taken from Jāmiʿ Masā'il 'l-Aḥkām by ál-Burzulī (died 841 A.H.), 1/84, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.):If there are two Imāms in the city and each is qualified to pass rulings, it would be permissible for the layman to follow whomever he likes – either the most knowledgeable out of the two or the other one. However, it is preferable that he places in front the most knowledgeable one [when choosing], but it is not illegal [either to ask the one who is lesser in knowledge]. Had it been illegal, it would not have been permissible to ask any scholar when there is someone more knowledgeable than him present in the city: it is not impossible that the lesser one is more

knowledgeable of this particular issue, because he might be more stronger in [the knowledge of] that particular chapter or event, as there is no such person who is the most knowledgeable in every issue, and such variance [in knowledge] is present between one master [in knowledge] as opposed to another.

7. Abū 'l-Walīd Ibn Rushd Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Qurṭubī (died 520 A.H.) said (Ál-Muqaddimāt ál-Mumahhidāt, 2/263, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1408 A.H.):If [the judge] is not from the people of Ijtihād, his obligation would be to consult and follow. If the scholars differ in front of him, he should pass judgement with the position of the most knowledgeable. It has been said that he should take the position of the majority as has been stated in ál-Mudawwanaħ, quoting the Seven Jurists. The first position is more correct. It has [also] been said that he can judge by the position of whomever he wishes if he seeks the truth by that and not predilection. He may consult one scholar, and if he does then the preferred position is that he consults the most knowledgeable. If he consults someone who is lesser in knowledge and takes his position, then that would be permissible if the consultant is from the people of Ijtihād.

8. Abū Bakr ál-Ṭurṭūshī Muḥammad bin 'l-Walīd bin Muḥammad ál-Fihrī (died 520 A.H.) said (taken from Jāmiʿ Masā'il 'l-Aḥkām by ál-Burzulī (died 841 A.H.), 1/81, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.):When a layman implements a position of a Mujtahid in a ruling, he may not discard it in favour of another by agreement... it has been said that the preferred position is that it is permissible [to ask another Mujtahid in another issue], as it is certain that it used to happen in the era of the Companions and others without condemnation.

9. Abū Bakr Ibn 'l-ʿArabī Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Maʿāfirī (died 543 A.H.) said (Ál-Maḥṣūl Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 154-155, Dār 'l-Bayāriq Amman, 1st edition 1420 A.H.):Our scholars said: What is obligatory upon the Muqallid who considers himself unable to look into the evidences of rulings is that he asks his most knowledgeable contemporary. Whichever ruling he gives him, it would be obligatory upon him to practice upon it. How would he know that he is the most knowledgeable? [Abū Isḥāq ál-Isfarāyīnī] said, “through news with multiple chains”, [but] this is weak. It is sufficient that two men classify him [as such] for [the Muqallid].

10. Abū ʿAlī ál-Ḥusayn bin ʿAtīq bin 'l-Ḥusayn bin ʿAtīq bin 'l-Ḥusayn bin Rashīq ál-Rabaʿī (died 632 A.H.) said (Lubāb 'l-Maḥṣūl Fī ʿIlm 'l-Uṣūl, pg. 2/738-739, Dār 'l-Buḥūth Li-'l-Dirāsāt ál-Islāmiyyaħ Wa-Iḥyā' 'l-Turāth Dubai, 1st edition 1422 A.H.):If there is only one jurisconsult [in the area], referring to him would be specified. If there is a group that are different from one another in the depth of knowledge, then is it obligatory to refer to the best? Some have reported its obligation, [but] this goes against that which the ancients adopted, as they did not used to condemn that person who would ask [various] individuals from [the scholars], and they did not use to oblige him to ask the most knowledgeable. [In addition,] the most knowledgeable in [any one] particular issue is unknown. It is [nevertheless] better to follow the most knowledgeable, as it is most likely that he will be correct. This is when the rulings of [the scholars] conflict; if they are equal, he may follow whichever [scholar] he likes. If they are equal in the level of knowledge and their rulings conflict, what should the Muqallid do? [Ál-Bāqillānī] chose that he would have a choice and can practise upon the ruling of whomever he likes. According to me, however, this is not usually possible, as the layman’s skill in identifying that the scholars are equal in knowledge is typically hard to achieve. So, if he is to claim that one scholar is preferred over another, that would be a claim of preference based on

predilection, like the Muqallids’ preference for the school of their Imāms over other [schools] – and these people are at the level of laymen. Investigation reveals that the layman has no capacity to execute preference. If he becomes able to execute preference in his situation, then this would only have been after he became aware of its evidences, and his learning of what deserves to be given priority and what is stipulated to be held back. At that moment, he would cease to be a layman, and it would be incumbent upon him to follow his own belief and not to follow the [scholars’] ruling when he [initially] preferred.

11. Ibn 'l-Ḥājib Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān bin ʿUmar ál-Kurdī (died 646 A.H.) said (Muntahā 'l-Wuṣūl Wa-'l-Amal Fī ʿIlmay 'l-Uṣūl Wa-'l-Jadal, pg. 165, Maṭbaʿaŧ 'l-Saʿādaħ Cairo, 1st edition 1326 A.H.):The preferred position is that, in the scenario of multiple Mujtahids, the Muqallid can follow whomever he wishes, even if some are superior to others...

12. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Abī Bakr ál-Qurṭubī (died 671 A.H.) said (Ál-Jāmiʿ Li-Aḥkām 'l-Qur'ān, 3/16-17, Mu'assasaŧ 'l-Risālaħ Beirut, 1st edition 1427 A.H.):The obligation of the layman – who does not occupy himself in the extraction of rules from its sources due to his status as a non-qualified – in issues of his religion he does not know of and requires an answer therein is for him to seek out the most knowledgeable person of his era and city, and ask him of his situation, and then obey his ruling in it, due to the [verse] “So ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know.” He must exercise Ijtihād for the most knowledgeable person of his era by researching for him...

13. Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd 'l-Ḥamīd bin Abī 'l-Barakāt bin ʿImrān ál-Ṣadafī ál-Ṭarābalusī ál-Lībī (died 684 A.H.) said when questioning ʿIzz bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām (died 660 A.H.) on Taqlīd (taken from Jāmiʿ Masā'il 'l-Aḥkām by ál-Burzulī (died 841 A.H.), 1/77, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.):... despite knowing the position that it is not obligatory to follow the most knowledgeable as ál-Bāqillānī chose, and as the people of Uṣūl have reported that the Companions did not place under a rule-issuing interdiction on [everyone] apart from Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, but rather those beneath them in knowledge used to pass rules in their presence...

14. Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Idrīs ál-Qarāfī (died 684 A.H.) said:The preferred opinion is to distinguish [between] every issue to which his action is connected, in which he cannot follow anyone else, and [between] that in which his action is not connected, [in which] there is no prevention from following another [school]. (Nafā'is 'l-Uṣūl Min Sharḥ 'l-Maḥṣūl, 9/3963, Maktabaŧ Nizār Muṣṭafā ál-Bāz Makkah, 1st edition, 1416 A.H.)Consensus is established that a Muslim can follow whichever scholar he likes without restriction. The Companions (may the pleasure of God be on them) had a consensus that a person who asked Abu Bakr and ʿUmar (may God be pleased with them) had the right to [also] ask Abū Hurayraħ, Muʿādh bin Jabal (and others) and implement their opinion without being condemned. Whosoever claims these two consensuses are [no longer] inapplicable, he ought to bring proof. (Ál-Dhakhīraħ, 1/141, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.)

15. Ibn Juzayy ál-Kalbi Abū 'l-Qāsim Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Gharnāṭī (died 741 A.H.) said (Taqrīb 'l-Wuṣūl Ilā ʿIlm 'l-Uṣūl, pg. 161, Dār 'l-Turāth ál-Islāmī Algiers, 1st edition 1410 A.H.): If a questioner finds one scholar, he should follow him. If he finds two or more, then it has been said that he should follow one out of them, and it has been said that he choose the most knowledgeable and superior. If one asks two men or more and they conflict in the ruling, it has

been said that he can the position of anyone he likes; it has been said that he should execute Ijtihād in which one of them is the best and take his position; and it has been said that he should take the most safest position.

16. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām ál-Hawārī (died 749 A.H.) said (taken from ál-Miʿyār ál-Muʿrib Wa-'l-Jāmiʿ ál-Mughrib by ál-Wansharīsī (died 914 A.H.), 12/28, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs Morocco, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.):A solitary opinion may sometimes be argued for by a jurist, chosen by a Mujtahid, and followed by a layman.

17. Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā bin Mūsā ál-Ruhūni (died 773 A.H.) said (Tuḥfaŧ 'l-Mas'ūl Fī Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar Muntahā 'l-Sūl, 4/303, Dār 'l-Buḥūth Li-'l-Dirāsāt ál-Islāmiyyaħ Wa-Iḥyā' 'l-Turāth Dubai, 1st edition 1422 A.H.):As for when he wants to follow another [scholar] in another situation, the preferred position is of its permissibility.

18. Abū Isḥāq ál-Shaṭibī Ibrāhīm bin Mūsā ál-Gharnāṭī (died 790 A.H.) said (Ál-Muwāfaqāt Fī Uṣūl 'l-Sharīʿaħ, 4/130-131, Dār 'l-Fikr ál-ʿArabī Cairo, 2nd edition 1395 A.H.):As for the differences of scholars for the Muqallids then likewise: there is no difference between a Mujtahid encountering evidence and a layman encountering a jurisconsult. So the mutual conflict of two rulings in front of [the layman] is like the mutual conflict of two evidences for the Mujtahid: just like it is impermissible for a Mujtahid to follow both evidences at one time, or to take one evidence without executing Ijtihād and preference, then likewise it is impermissible for a layman to follow both jurisconsults at once, or [to follow] one of them without executing Ijtihād and preference.

19. Abū Bakr Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin ʿĀṣim ál-Gharnāṭī (died 821 A.H.) said in poetry (Murtaqā 'l-Wuṣūl Ilā ʿIlm 'l-Uṣūl, pg. 70, Dār 'l-Bukhārī Madīnaħ, 1st edition 1415 A.H.):[What is also permissible is] his switching from one school to another, with [the stipulations] of conviction of knowledge in the followed [scholar], and that dispensation is not seen as the priority, and that he does not witness an innovation that brings about [a scenario] that conflicts with consensus.

20. Ál-Burzulī Abū 'l-Qāsim bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad ál-Balawī ál-Tūnisī (died 841 A.H.) said (Jāmiʿ Masā'il 'l-Aḥkām, 1/81, Dār 'l-Gharb ál-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.):The statement of [ál-Fihrī] implies that it is permissible for a follower to switch from one school to another in a particular issue, or to implement the position of an Imām in one issue and switch to another in another issue, or to adhere to the school of an Imām – like Mālik – then switch to someone else.

21. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin Yūsuf ál-Sanūsī (died 895 A.H.) said (taken from ál-Miʿyār ál-Muʿrib Wa-'l-Jāmiʿ ál-Mughrib by ál-Wansharīsī (died 914 A.H.), 12/44-45, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Morocco, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.):After [learning that] a Muqallid must adhere to one specific school, there is difference over whether he can exit to the schools of other Mujtahids: it has been said that it is impermissible because he has specifically adhered to it, even though it was not obligatory for him [initially] to specifically adhere to it; it has been said that it is permissible for him to exit from it if he likes, as he had adhered to something that is not binding on him; and the third position is to distinguish [between] that which he has no practice [in which] it is permissible to exit from the school of his

Imām, and [between] that in which he has practised [in which[ it is impermissible for him to exit. It has [also] been said that it is not even obligatory upon him to adhere to one school to begin with, but rather he can from one school sometimes and from another school at other times in issues affecting him... As for one following in a dispensation without continuously following up [on dispensations] but rather for a necessity in some situation due to the fear of tribulation etc., then he may do so.

22. Abū ʿAlī Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī bin Ṭalḥaħ ál-Rajrājī ál-Shawshāwī (died 899 A.H.) said (Rafʿ 'l-Niqāb ʿAn Tanqīḥ 'l-Shihāb, 6/45, 56, Maktabaŧ 'l-Rushd Riyadh, 1st edition 1425 A.H.):It is obligatory upon laymen to execute Ijtihād in [choosing] individual Mujtahids... As for one who has not adhered to one specific school, it is permissible for him to switch [from one school to another] by agreement.

23. Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Yaḥyā ál-Wansharīsī (died 914 A.H.) said (Ál-Miʿyār ál-Muʿrib Wa-'l-Jāmiʿ ál-Mughrib, 12/20, 12/32, 12/33 and 12/44-45, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs, Morocco, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.):As for the complete Muqallid who is unqualified to understand the methods of preferences, and the evidences of publicising and authentication... – like whom is the layman is who cannot distinguish that, nor can he learn what is therein due to his ignorance – then his affair is [of one of two:] either he has a specific school he affiliates himself to or not. As for when he has a school to which he affiliates himself, then it is disagreed upon whether he can choose whichever school he wishes or not... As for when the layman or pure Muqallid does not affiliate himself to a specific school, then there are two opinions...... What is understood from the strength of the statements of these Imāms (may God be pleased with them) is that the prohibited element is to follow up on dispensations of all school, but not [concessions] within one school [only]. Research would suggest there is no difference between the two; however, the reasoning behind the prohibition (i.e. it would lead to the nullification of the binding nature of the law in every issue of difference) would only truly arise in the former scenario, not the latter. This is because a ruling may be one of prohibition in one school by agreement and permissible in another by agreement or with a difference, so if we allowed the following up of dispensations of [all] schools then it would lead to what they said, because what the schools agree up is very small in number – as opposed to following up on dispensations in one school, as that is not as bad as the first...... The scholars have disagreed in this chapter over two positions. One of them is that the differences of the scholars from the Companions and those Imāms after them is an encompassing mercy, and it is permissible for the one looking into the difference of the Companions of the Messenger (may God send benedictions and peace on him) to adopt whichever position of theirs he likes, and likewise the one looking into the statements of the Imāms [after] them, as long as it is not known that it is a mistake. If it becomes clear that it is a mistake due to it going against a text of the Qurān or prophetic tradition, or the consensus of the scholars, it would not be correct for him to follow it. If that does not become clear to him through these means, it is permissible for him to use his position...

24. Quoting ál-Lakhmī (died 478 A.H.), Ibn Ghāzī Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Miknāsī (died 919 A.H.) said (Shifā' 'l-Ghalīl Fī Ḥall Muqfal Khalīl, 1/120, Dār Najībawayh Cairo, 1st edition 1429 A.H.):If there are three jurists in the city and each has an opinion that is different from the other, and they are all qualified to pass rulings, it would be permissible for the layman to follow whomever he likes. If there is one scholar and has preferences, then this scenario has two opinions: one is

that he may pass onto the questioner whichever [opinion] he likes; the second is that he would be in relation to [answering] that [question] like one quoting, informing [the questioner] of the [scholars] adopting the opinions, and [it would be up to the layman] to follow whomever he likes, just as if the [quoted scholars] were all alive [in which case he would have been able to ask any one of them].

25. Quoting ál-Qarāfī (died 684 A.H.), who was quoting ál-Āmidī (631 A.H.), ál-Ḥaṭṭāb ál-Ruʿaynī Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān ál-Maghribī (died 954 A.H.) said (Mawāhib 'l-Jalīl Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar Khalīl, 1/44-45, Dār ʿĀlam 'l-Kutub Riyadh, special edition 1423 A.H.):If a layman follows a Mujtahid in the ruling of an event and implement his opinion, then [the scholars] have agreed that he may not withdraw himself from that ruling. They differed in his withdrawal to another [scholar] in another event – it has been [both] allowed and disallowed. [The latter] is the truth, taking into consideration the consensus of the Companions in the allowance for the layman to ask [whichever] scholar in [any] issue, and interdiction upon them in that has not been recorded from the predecessors. Had it been disallowed, it would not have been [correct] for the Companions to leave [the issue] and remain silent from condemning it...

26. Ṣāliḥ bin Mahdī bin ʿAlī ál-Muqbilī (died 1108 A.H.) said (Najāḥ 'l-Ṭālib Li-Mukhtaṣar 'l-Muntahā Li-'bn 'l-Ḥājib, pg. 617, PhD thesis, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, 1423 A.H.):The truth therefore is the most preferred scholar is specified [for being asked for a ruling] as is the case for the Mujtahid, as the Imāms for the Muqallids are like evidences for the Mujtahid. However, executing preference can only be exacted by looking into each individual issue. As for general preference, then it is only an overall estimation, not a definitive [case-by-case-] verdict... If one intends to [adhere to one specific school] – even though it is not necessary to begin with – then the most preferred scholar would be binding on him... as the said adherence [to one specific school] did not occur in the [era of] the first predecessors; rather it most definitely only happened later on.

27. Aḥmad bin Ghunaym bin Sālim bin Muhanna' ál-Nafrāwī (died 1126 A.H.) said (Ál-Fawākih ál-Dawānī ʿAlā Risālaŧ Ibn Abī Zayd ál-Qayrawānī, 1/580, Dār 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyaħ Beirut, 1st edition 1418 A.H.):If all are so stingy they cannot sacrifice one sheep each on behalf of each head, it would be appropriate if they followed ál-Shāfiʿī or Abū Ḥanīfaħ [so that] one [buffalo] would suffice for them if they do not exceed seven [individuals].

28. Quoting Ibn Nujaym (died 970 A.H.), ál-Fullānī Ṣāliḥ bin Muḥammad ál-ʿUmarī (died 1218 A.H.) said (Īqāẓ Himam Ulī 'l-Abṣār, pg. 165, Dār 'l-Fatḥ Sharjah, 1st edition 1418 A.H.):It is permissible to follow any Mujtahid one wishes...

29. ʿAbd 'llāh bin Ibrāhīm bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān ál-ʿAlawī ál-Shinqīṭī (died 1233 A.H.) said in poetry (taken from his Nashr 'l-Bunūd ʿAlā Marāqī 'l-Suʿūd, 2/654, edited by Muḥammad ál-Amīn bin Muḥammad Bayb, 1st edition 1426 A.H.):Can a person adhering to a school switch [in any particular issue] or not? The [opinion of] distinguishing [between the impermissibility for him to exit his school in what he has already practised upon, and permissibility in other things] is the most correct [opinion] narrated.

30. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām ál-Tasūlī (died 1258 A.H.) said (Ál-Tuḥfaħ Fī Sharḥ 'l-Bahjaħ, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 5195, pg. 133)

The scholars of Uṣūl have differed over the permissibility of switching from one school to another in some issues. The correct position, from a theoretical standpoint, is it is permissible.

31. Abū 'l-Ḥasan bin ʿAbd 'l-Sattār ál-Baghdādī (died post-1260 A.H.) said ([A book in the fundamentals of the law], King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 451, pg. 67):The researchers have preferred the second opinion from whether a layman has a school which would be binding on him... or whether he does not have a school, b which he may ask whomever he likes.

32. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad ʿIllīsh (died 1299 A.H.), quoting an answer of Abū 'l-Walīd Ibn Rushd (died 520 A.H.) said (Fatḥ 'l-ʿAliyy ál-Mālik, vol. 1, chapter on issues regarding the fundamentals of the law, Maṭbaʿaŧ Muṣṭafā ál-Bābī ál-Ḥalabī Cairo, reprint Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition 1367 A.H.):If a city has two Imāms and each can pass rulings, the layman can follow whomever he likes, whether the more knowledgeable one or the other one. It is better to prefer the knowledgeable one though it is not obligatory.

33. Muḥammad Yaḥyā bin Muḥammad ál-Mukhtār ál-Shinqīṭī ál-Walātī (died 1330 A.H.) said (Nayl 'l-Sūl ʿAlā Murtaqā 'l-Wuṣūl, pg. 209, Dār ʿĀlam 'l-Kutub Riyadh, 1st edition 1412 A.H.):[What Ibn ʿĀṣim] means is that it is permissible by consensus for a Muqallid to switch from one school to another with three prerequisites...

34. Ḥasan bin ʿUmar ál-Sīnāwanī (died 1349 A.H.) said (Ál-Aṣl ál-Jāmiʿ Li-Īḍāḥ 'l-Durar ál-Manẓūmaħ Fī Silk Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, 3/97, Maṭbaʿaŧ 'l-Nahḍaħ Tunis, 1st edition 1347 A.H.):There are [various] opinions in following a lesser Mujtahid. One – preferred by Ibn 'l-Ḥājib – is that it is permissible as it famously and repeatedly occurred in the era of the Companions and others without any condemnation, and this is the famous position, whether the Muqallid considers him to be the preferred one or not. The second [position] is that it is impermissible, because the positions of the Mujtahids for the Muqallid are like evidence for the Mujtahid... so just as it is obligatory to take the preferred evidence, it is obligatory to take the preferred position, [which is] the position of the preferred scholar; a layman may identify him by hearsay etc. The third position is the preferred one: following on the basis of the belief that the followed [scholar] is preferred or is an equal – as opposed to the one whom [the Muqallid] believes is the lesser one – as a matter of fact... and in that vase it would not be obligatory to search for the most preferred Mujtahid, but rather the foundation would be the belief of the followed [scholar] being the preferred one or an equal.

35. Muḥammad ál-Khaḍir bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Māyābī ál-Jakanī ál-Shinqīṭī (died 1354 A.H.) said (Qamʿ Ahl 'l-Zaygh Wa-'l-Ilḥād ʿAn ál-Ṭaʿn Fī Taqlīd A'immaŧ 'l-'jtihād, pg. 39, Dār Iḥyā' 'l-Kutub ál-ʿArabiyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition 1345 A.H.):The third issue is regarding the layman when he asks a jurisconsult in an issue: can he ask another in that same issue or in another issue? As for the same issue, there is either one of two scenarios: he has already implemented the position of the [first] jurisconsult, or not. If he has, then he cannot - by agreement - take the opinion of any other jurisconsult in that same issue, because he has taken upon himself to adhere to that position by way of having concluded its implementation. The layman intended here is the one who has not decided to adhere to one school...

36. Muḥammad ál-Amīn bin Muḥammad ál-Mukhtār ál-Shinqīṭī (died 1393 A.H.) said (Mudhakkiraħ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 374, Maktabaŧ 'l-ʿUlūm Wa-'l-Ḥikam Madinah, 5th edition 1421 A.H.):If there are [multiple] Mujtahids in one city, he may ask anyone he likes. He does not have to refer back to the most knowledgeable as it is permissible to ask the lesser [scholar]. It has been said that he must ask the superior [scholar].

37. Ibn 'l-Munayyir Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Manṣūr al-Jarawī (died 683 A.H.) said (taken from al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ by al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.), 6/313, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):Even had I not found the issue of the layman being given a choice due to conflicting jurisconsults specifically mentioned in the prophetic tradition, attacking [this ruling’s] establishment would still not have been tolerable… The Prophet (peace be upon him) sent an expedition to Banū Qurayẓah and said, “Do not stop until you come to them.” The ʿAṣr Prayer had come on the way and [the Companions] differed at that moment: some of them performed ʿAṣr and then set off [again]; some of them kept on going and took [the Prophet’s] statement “Do not stop” on its apparent. When the story was presented to the Prophet (peace be upon him), he did not treat anybody from [either side] to be incorrect. We know that the expedition was not void of those who have no [power of] analysis and could have done nothing apart from follow the leaders and scholars in the group. The person who was following had a choice, and it is through his choice that he followed [one of the two]. Neither blame nor fault had been [administered] to [such a person].

39. Ibn Abī 'l-Dunyā Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd 'l-Ḥamīd bin Abī 'l-Barakāt al-Ṣadafī al-Ṭarābalusī (died 684 A.H.) said (taken from al-ʿIqd al-Farīd Fī Aḥkām 'l-Taqlīd by al-Samhūdī (died 911 A.H.), pg. 122, Dār 'l-Minhāj Jeddah, 1st edition, 1432 A.H.):I asked the Shaykh, the jurist, the scholar, ʿIzz 'l-Dīn bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām [al-Shafiʿī (died 660 A.H.)] whether it is permissible to [stick to] the first opinion from which one's Imām has [now] withdrew. He told me, “That is permissible.”

40. Regarding Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Mālik bin Anas al-Aṣbaḥī (died 179 A.H.), Ibn 'l-Qaṣṣār (died 397 A.H.) said (Muqaddimaħ Fī Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh, pg. 160-162, Dār 'l-Maʿlamaħ Riyadh, 1st edition, 1420 A.H.):According to Mālik, when a layman intends to ask for ruling, it is obligatory upon him to exercise a degree of Ijtihād, which for him is to go to the people of that knowledge regarding which he intends to ask. He does not have to ask everyone he meets; rather when he is guided to a jurist, he should look at his disposition and experience in his field, and he should inquire about his level of knowledge and trustworthiness. If there is a higher person [in knowledge] in that [issue], he should ask him and accept his position and ruling, as this would be more appropriate for the sake of his religion, and it would be more assuring for him in his affair with the Sharīʿaħ in terms of [the correctness of the verdict]. This [scenario] would be like two narrations or analogies conflicting in the eyes of a scholar, requiring of him to execute preference between the two and so he proceeds – likewise the layman [when faced with] multiple jurisconsults.

41. Ibn ʿAbd 'l-Barr Abū ʿUmar Yūsuf bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Muḥammad al-Namarī al-Qurṭubī (died 463 A.H.) said (taken from ʿUmdat 'l-Taḥqīq Fī al-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by al-Bānī (died 1351 A.H.), pg. 71, Dār 'l-Qādirī Damascus, 2nd edition, 1418 A.H.):

It has not reached us that any Imām ordered his disciples to adhere to a specific school [in which] he would not go against it.

42. Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm bin Ibrāhīm al-Laqqānī (died 1041 A.H.) said (Manār Uṣūl 'l-Fatwā Wa-Qawāʿid 'l-Iftā' Bi-'l-Aqwā, pg. 255, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs Morocco edition): If the answer of jurisconults conflicts in front of him, and there is no text from the Book or prophetic tradition, he would prioritise the answer of the most knowledgeable, even by his own estimation…

43. ʿAbd 'l-Salām bin Ibrāhīm bin Ibrāhīm al-Laqqānī (died 1078 A.H.), explaining his father’s poetry, said (Itḥāf 'l-Murīd Sharḥ Jawharat 'l-Tawḥīd, printed with Ḥāshiyat Ibn 'l-Amīr by al-Sinbāwī (died 1232 A.H.), pg. 251-252, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.): … he would exit from legal responsibility by following whomsoever of [the Mujtahids] he likes, whether lesser or superior… There is consensus that whosoever follows one of these Imāms in the subsidiaries and issues [subject to] Ijtihād, after ascertaining that the position of [the Imām he is following] is correctly realised by fulfilling the prerequisites and negating the blocks, would be free from legal responsibility in [the issue] he followed.

44. Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm bin Marʿī bin ʿAṭiyyah al-Shabarkhītī (died 1106 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyat 'l-Ṣāwī ʿAlā al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr by al-Ṣāwī (died 1241 A.H.), printed under al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr by al-Dardīr (died 1201 A.H.), 1/19, Dār 'l-Maʿārif Cairo edition): Constantly seeking out the dispensations of the schools is banned… Mixing up [is] banned…

45. Regarding Muḥammad al-Ṣaghir (died pre-1189 A.H.), ʿAlī bin Aḥmad al-Ṣaʿīdī al-ʿAdawī (died 1189 A.H.), al-Ṣāwī (died 1241 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyat 'l-Ṣāwī ʿAlā al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr by al-Ṣāwī (died 1241 A.H.), printed under al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr by al-Dardīr (died 1201 A.H.), 1/19, Dār 'l-Maʿārif Cairo edition): What our teacher al-Amīr said from his teacher al-ʿAdawī from his teacher al-Ṣaghīr and others is that the correct position is the permissibility of [mixing up], and it is leeway.

46. Regarding ʿAlī bin Aḥmad al-Ṣaʿīdī al-ʿAdawī (died 1189 A.H.), al-Ṣāwī (died 1241 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyat 'l-Ṣāwī ʿAlā al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr by al-Ṣāwī (died 1241 A.H.), printed under al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr by al-Dardīr (died 1201 A.H.), 1/19, Dār 'l-Maʿārif Cairo edition): … the relied-upon position is the permissibility of mixing up between two schools in worship, as ʿAllāmah al-ʿAdawī passed verdict by…

47. Muḥammad bin Muḥammad al-Sinbāwī al-Azharī al-Amīr (died 1232 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat Ibn 'l-Amīr, printed under Itḥāf 'l-Murīd Sharḥ Jawharat 'l-Tawḥīd by ʿAbd 'l-Salām al-Laqqānī (died 1078 A.H.), pg. 252, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.): There is difference in mixing up and following [another Imām] post-action.

48. Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Ṣāwī (died 1241 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Ṣāwī ʿAlā al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr, printed under al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr by al-Dardīr (died 1201 A.H.), 1/19, Dār 'l-Maʿārif Cairo edition): However, it is not appropriate to [mix up] in marriage, because safety is adopted in matters of private parts in a way that is not [done so] for other [issues].

49. Yūsuf al-Zayyāt (died post-1271 A.H.) said (taken from al-Wasm Fī Ḥukm 'l-Washm by Aḥmad bin Aḥmad bin Ismāʿīl al-Khalījī al-Ḥalwānī (died 1308 A.H.), Azhar University Cairo manuscript 48382(?), pg. 146-147 (manuscript page count starts from 126)): If a follower is a Shāfiʿī, performs ablution according to his school and wipes part of his head, [then] follows the Mālikīs in the eradication of filth being [of the status of] prophetic tradition, his prayer would be correct, because the relied-upon position is the permissibility of mixing up between two schools in worship… Following in that situation, even without necessity, is permissible.

50. ʿAbd 'l-Qādir bin ʿAbd 'l-Karīm al-Shafshāwanī (died 1313 A.H.) said (taken from ʿUmdat 'l-Taḥqīq Fī al-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by al-Bānī (died 1351 A.H.), pg. 169-170 and 209, Dār 'l-Qādirī Damascus, 2nd edition, 1418 A.H.): Switching due to a reason is allowed. If it is for [discharging] a primary obligation [in the other school but not in one’s own school], then that [switching would be] recommended. If it is due to taking dispensation, the one [wanting to] switch would be looked at: if he is from those with strength, he would be kept on the primary obligation of his own school and would not be given the dispensation to switch. If it is for a necessity, then [it would be allowed as] necessities legalise the proscribed, let alone the permissible. [An example] of that is Imām Mālik does not opine for the leasing of land in exchange for its yield, [but] the position of al-Layth is of [its] permissibility. This was adopted by the Andalusians: most of the people today are on [al-Layth’s opinion] – no person wanting to move them away from that can [do so]… As thus, it is recorded that switching in one issue [to another school without having to switch in] all [issues] is permissible if it is to follow an advantage, and to avert a harm… The Uṣūlīs differed in this issue of mixing up – the correct position from an analytical viewpoint is its permissibility.

51. ʿAbd 'l-Razzāq bin ʿAfīfī bin ʿAṭiyyah al-ʿAfīfī (died 1415 A.H.) signed (Fatāwā 'l-Lajnah al-Dā'imah, 5/64, Dār 'l-Mu'ayyad Riyadh, 5th edition, 1424 A.H.): It is not necessary upon anybody to follow a particular school out of these schools; rather… whosoever is unable to derive rulings from the texts etc… he should ask trusted people of knowledge in regards to the rulings of the Sharīʿah…

The Shawaaf’i (Shafi’ees)

109 Senior Scholars among the Shafi’ees who do not obligate following a madhaab on the laymen

1. Regarding Ibn Surayj Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin ʿUmar al-Baghdādī (died 306 A.H.):a. 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.b. Al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.) said (Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 6/313, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwah Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):If we take the position of Ibn Surayj, [the layman] would exercise Ijtihād in [ascertaining] the most reliable and knowledgeable in the law.

2. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh al-Zubayr bin Aḥmad al-Zubayrī al-Baṣrī (died 317 A.H.) said (taken from al-Faqīh Wa-'l-Mutafaqqih by al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (died 462 A.H.), 2/432, 2/79, Dār Ibn 'l-Jawzī Dammam, 1st edition 1417 A.H.):If a person [asks about] your position on following vis-à-vis a lay questioner who is given verdicts by two men who happen to differ, it would be submitted to him that this, Allāh willing, is of two scenarios. One is: if the layman’s intellect is broad and his understanding is well-grounded long enough for him to appreciate and comprehend when [required to do so], he should ask the ones differing regarding their evidences and take what is the most preferred according to him. [The other scenario is:] if his understanding is not deficient from this [level, but] his comprehension is not as well-grounded, he would follow the one who is the most superior according to him.

3. Regarding Ibn Abī Hurayrah Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan bin 'l-Ḥusayn al-Baghdādī (died 345 A.H.), al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.), quoting al-Māwardī (died 450 A.H.), said in his Khādim 'l-Rāfiʿī Wa-'l-Rawḍah (taken from al-Fatāwā al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubrā by al-Haytamī (died 974 A.H.), 4/289, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut edition):[It is reported from] Ibn Abī Hurayrah (may Allāh have mercy on him) that [a child, who happens to be a Shāfiʿī, reaches majority and is found drinking fermented date infusions] would not be criminalised… the [scenario for non-criminalisation] is when [the person] intended to follow the one who opined for its legality…

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Abū 'l-Ḥasan Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Ḍabbī al-Maḥāmilī (died 415 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyat 'l-ʿAbbādī ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-Maḥallī ʿAlā Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ by al-ʿAbbādī (died 994 A.H.), 4/267-268, al-Maṭbaʿah al-Amīriyyah Cairo, 1st edition, 1289 A.H.):

The evident stance is that the fifth position (i.e. he can choose and take the opinion of whomsoever out of the two he likes) is the strongest.

7. 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].

8. 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.

9. Regarding Abū 'l-Ṭayyib Ṭāhir bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Ṭāhir bin ʿUmar al-Ṭabarī (450 A.H.):-Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (died 476 A.H.) said (taken from al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ by al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.), 6/311-312, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwah Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):A man came to the Ḥanafī jurist al-Ṣaymarī [died 436 A.H.] with the Shāfiʿī verdict that, if [a wife’s] marriage representative was a sinner and her husband divorced her thrice, the divorce would not pass and he may marry her with a fresh contract [as the previous contract would have been non-existent]. Al-Ṣaymarī said, “They have said you were with an illegal pudendum all along, and that she can become legal for you today [with a new contract]! I’m telling you that she was legal for you all this time until you divorced her, and now she is illegal for you!” By this,

al-Ṣaymarī intended to sway the layman to the Ḥanafī School. [Afterwards,] Abū Isḥāq… came to Abū 'l-Ṭayyib al-Ṭabarī and informed him of the story. He replied, “... but Allāh has not ordained the layman to follow al-Ṣaymarī; rather He has ordained him to follow any scholar he wishes. Therefore, when the layman follows a trustworthy Shāfiʿī, he would have liberated himself of sin and liability until the Day of Judgement.”-Al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.), quoting al-Ṭurṭūshī (died 520 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.):The prayer announcement was made for the Friday Prayer. Justice Abū 'l-Ṭayyib al-Ṭabarī was just about to consecrate when bird droppings fell on him. He said “I am a Ḥanbalī”, consecrated, and entered into prayer.

10. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Muḥammad bin Ḥabīb al-Māwardī (died 450 A.H.) said (Al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr – from the beginning to the end of chapter on major ablution on Friday and the two ʿĪds, pg. 123, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1409 A.H.):Our disciples have differed over two opinions on whether [the layman] should undertake Ijtihād [in choosing] specific jurisconsults. The first – the opinion of Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Ibn Surayj – is that he must undertake Ijtihād and should only follow the most knowledgeable, pious and senior. The second viewpoint – which is the opinion of the majority of our disciples – is that he does not have to do that, because he cannot learn of the most knowledgeable except by [personally] participating in studies; a layman is not a participant and thus does not possess the tool to undertake Ijtihād in [ascertaining] the most knowledgeable, just like he does not possess the tool to undertake Ijtihād in [analysing] the evidence of [the jurist’s] opinion.

11. Al-Khaṭīb Abū Bakr Aḥmad bin ʿAlī bin Thābit al-Baghdādī (died 462 A.H.) said (Al-Faqīh Wa-'l-Mutafaqqih, 2/432, Dār Ibn 'l-Jawzī Dammam, 1st edition 1417 A.H.):It has been said that he can take the position of whichever jurisconsult he likes. This is the correct position as he not from the people of Ijtihād; rather his obligation is only to refer to the opinion of a trustworthy scholar, which he has done so, therefore it should suffice for him.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Ibn 'l-Ṣabbāgh Abū Naṣr ʿAbd 'l-Sayyid bin Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Wāḥid al-Baghdādī (died 477 A.H.) said:- It is necessary that the one following [a scholar] knows via Ijtihād that he is a scholar. [This] would justify his following and [only] then would he be followed.(Al-Shāmil Fī Furūʿ 'l-Shāfiʿiyyah, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 2746, pg. 72)

- [He may choose and practice on the opinion of whichever of the two conflicting scholars he likes] when he feels they are equal to each other.(Taken from al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ by al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.), 6/313, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwah Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.)

15. 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…

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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…

19. 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…

20. 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.

21. Ibn Barhān Abū 'l-Fatḥ Aḥmad bin ʿAlī al-Baghdādī (died 518 A.H.) said (2/368, Al-Wuṣūl Ilā al-Uṣūl, Maktabat 'l-Maʿārif Riyadh, 1st edition, 1404 A.H.):As for the opinion of he who believes that, when asking a ruling from an Imām in an issue, it would binding on the person to take his opinion on all issues, it is incorrect…

22. 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].

23. 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.

24. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Muḥammad al-Āmidī (died 631 A.H.) said (Al-Iḥkām Fī Uṣūl 'l-Aḥkām, 4/290, Dār 'l-Ṣamīʿī Riyadh, 1st edition, 1424 A.H.):The preferred position is that of differentiation: he cannot follow another position in any issue in which his action has a connection to the first position, [but] as long as his action has no connection to [the first position], there is no prevention from following another [position] in [that issue].

25. 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.

26. Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān al-Kurdī (died 643 A.H.) said (Fatāwā Wa-Masā'il Ibn 'l-Ṣalāḥ, pg. 87, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.):The first position [i.e. he can ask whomsoever he likes] is more correct, and it is the apparent state of the ancients.

27. Abū 'l-Faḍā'il Muḥammad bin 'l-Ḥusayn al-Armawī (died 656 A.H.) said (Ḥāsil 'l-Maḥsul, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 5026, pg. 188):

The truth is to take the opinion of the most knowledgeable…

28. ʿIzz 'l-Dīn Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd 'l-ʿAzīz bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām al-Sulamī (died 660 A.H.) said (Kitāb 'l-Fatāwā, pg. 153, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.):He can follow whichever Imām he likes in any issue. When he follows an Imām in an issue, it would not have become binding on him to follow him in every matter of difference, because from the era of the Companions up to when the schools emerged, people have asked different scholars without condemnation from anybody, regardless of whether they followed dispensations or the original obligations. This is because those who considered the truthful [Mujtahid] to be only one [person] did not specify who he is, whereas those who considered every Mujtahid to be correct [could] not condemn [the opinion opposite as] one would have followed somebody who was correct [in their belief].

29. Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā bin Sharaf al-Nawawī (died 676 A.H.) said (Rawḍat 'l-Ṭālibīn, 8/101, Dār ʿĀlam 'l-Kutub Beirut, special edition, 1423 A.H.):What the evidence demands is it is not necessary to adopt a school; rather one can ask whomsoever he likes, and whomsoever happens to be there, but without constantly picking out dispensations.

30. Abū 'l-Thanā' Maḥmūd bin Abī Bakr al-Armawī (died 682 A.H.) said (Al-Taḥṣīl Min al-Maḥṣūl, 2/305, Mu'assasat 'l-Risālah Beirut, 1st edition, 1408 A.H.):If two [scholars] give him one [unified] ruling, it would be binding on him; otherwise, it has been said that he must undertake Ijtihād in [ascertaining] the most knowledgeable and pious… and it has been said [otherwise], because the scholars of the ages have not condemned laymen for abandoning that [process]…

31. 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.

32. Regarding Ibn Daqīq 'l-ʿĪd Abū 'l-Fatḥ Muḥammad bin ʿAlī bin Wahb al-Qūṣī (died 702 A.H.), al-Zarkashī (died 794 A.H.) said (Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 6/322, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwah Hurghadah, 1413 A.H.):If one adheres to a specific school, like [that of] Mālik or al-Shāfiʿī, and he believed in its overall preference [over other schools], can he then go against his Imām in some issues and take another Mujtahid’s opinion? There are a number of positions on this… The seventh [position] – chosen by Ibn Daqīq 'l-ʿĪd – is that of its permissibility with preconditions: firstly, [his following] does not combine [to become] an outcome in which there is consensus on its illegality, like when one undergoes phlebotomy and touches his private part, then offers prayer; secondly, he does not follow in an issue in which its ruling would be reversed should [a judge’s verdict] ever pass on it; thirdly, the contentment of the heart in such following, and to be firmly of the belief that one is not playing around with the religion or is lax about it. The evidence for this [third] prerequisite is [the prophetic tradition], “Sin is what is felt in your heart.” This is clear in that whatever is felt in your heart [to be an act of sin] is sin.

33. 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.

34. 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…

35. Ibn 'l-Bārizī Abū 'l-Qāsim Hibat 'llāh bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm bin Ibrāhīm al-Juhanī (died 738 A.H.) said (Masā'il Taḥlīl 'l-Ḥā'iḍ Min al-Iḥrām, pg. 35, Dār 'l-Bashā'ir al-Islāmiyyah Damascus, 1st edition, 1420 A.H.):It is permissible to follow each and every one of the Four Imāms (may Allāh be pleased with them), and it is permissible for everyone to follow one of them in one issue and follow another Imām in another issue – it would not be specified on him to follow one particular Imām in all issues. Given that this is now known, the Pilgrimage of every woman in the aforementioned types would be correct according to the opinion of [at least] one Imām.

36. Al-Ḥusayn bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Muḥammad al-Ṭībī (died 743 A.H.), quoting al-Rāfiʿī (died 623 A.H.) via al-Nawawī (died 676 A.H.), said (Sharḥ 'l-Ṭībī ʿAlā Mishkāt 'l-Maṣābīḥ, 9/2590-2591, Maktabat Nizār Muṣṭafā al-Bāz Makkah, 1st edition, 1417 A.H.):Is it permissible for a follower to switch from one school to another? If we say that he must undertake Ijtihād in searching for the most knowledgeable, and he believes that the [other] scholar is more knowledgeable, then it should be the case that it is permissible – or obligatory even. If we give him a choice, it should still be allowed… What the action of the ancients demands is the permissibility [of switching]…

37. 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.

38. Abū 'l-ḤasanʿAlī bin ʿAbd 'l-Kāfī al-Subkī (died 756 A.H.) said (Fatāwā 'l-Subkī, 1/147, Dar 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition):[If], by following [an Imām other than al-Shāfiʿī], he intended dispensation in a need that came about or a necessity that made him struggle, it would also be permissible. However, if he believes in the preference of [al-Shāfiʿī knowledgewise] and in [the obligation of] following the most knowledgeable, then [this] would be prevented [in theory; however,] this is difficult and the

best position is that of permissibility [in following another Imām despite believing that al-Shāfiʿī is the most knowledgeable]…

39. 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…

40. Al-ʿAlā'ī Abū Saʿīd Khalīl bin Kaykaladī bin ʿAbd 'llāh al-Dimashqī (died 761 A.H.) said (taken from al-Taqrīr Wa-'l-Taḥbīr by Ibn Amīr 'l-Ḥājj (died 879 A.H.), 3/351, al-Maṭbaʿaħ al-Amīriyyaħ Cairo, 1st edition, 1316 A.H.):What the jurists in their famous texts have explicated is the permissibility to switch in individual issues, and to practice against one’s school in them, when it does not happen out of a constant search for dispensations.

41. Abū Naṣr ʿAbd 'l-Wahhāb bin ʿAlī bin ʿAbd 'l-Kāfī al-Subkī (died 771 A.H.) said (Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, pg. 123, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 2nd edition, 1424 A.H.):When a layman acts on the opinion of a Mujtahid, he may not move away from [his opinion]… and the most correct position is that it is permissible [for him to do so] in another ruling.

42. Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm bin 'l-Ḥasan al-Isnawī (died 772 A.H.) said (Nihāyat 'l-Sūl Fī Sharḥ Minhāj 'l-Uṣūl, 3/297, Dar 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1405 A.H.):If [a layman] asks a group [of scholars] and their verdicts differ, then a number [of scholars] have stated that he must undertake Ijtihād [to ascertain] the most pious and knowledgeable amongst them, [whereas] others have stated that is not obligatory…

43. Yūsuf bin Ibrāhīm al-Ardabīlī (died around 779 A.H.), quoting al-Nawawī (died 676 A.H.), said (Al-Anwār Li-Aʿmāl 'l-Abrār, 3/460, Dār 'l-Ḍiyā' Hawalli, 1st edition, 1427 A.H.):The evidences demands is it is not necessary on him [to adopt a school]; rather he can ask whomsoever he likes, and whomsoever happens to be there, [but] without constantly picking out dispensations.

44. Quoting Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Ḥamdān al-Adhraʿī (died 783 A.H.):-Al-Shirbīnī (died 977 A.H.) said (Mughnī 'l-Muḥtāj Ilā Maʿrifat Maʿānī Alfāẓ 'l-Minhāj, 2/367, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.):It seems [the assumption for the ruling of the illegality of breaking date alcohol vessels] is for when the one publicly perpetrating [its consumption] is doing so out of [his own Ijtihād] or by following [another Imām]. But if he is from those who considers [date alcohol] to be illegal, the obvious position is that it is like the [type of]Khamr[that is] by consensus [considered to beKhamr, i.e. grape alcohol]. [Also,] is the layman who does not follow a school to be treated like this [latter] person, or would he be treated as one who considers it legal? There is a possibility [either way] in this.-

ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn Bā-ʿAlawī (died 1320 A.H.) said (Bughyat 'l-Mustarshidīn, pg. 257, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition):However, he should be aware of a minute point: Abū Ḥanīfah is of the opinion of the impermissibility of sacrifice on the final day of the Days of Morning Sacrifice, so one wanting to follow him regarding a cropped animal should adhere to his position in this [matter], just like all the [other] prerequisites of following [another Imām].

45. Muḥammad bin Bahādur bin ʿAbd 'llāh al-Zarkashi (died 794 A.H.) said (Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 6/319 Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Kuwait, 2nd edition, 1414 A.H.):Is it obligatory upon the layman to follow a specific school in every issue? There are two positions in this. Ilkiyā said it is obligatory. Ibn Barhān said it is not. Al-Nawawī preferred this in the beginning of [the chapter of] judicature, and [this] is the correct position as the Companions (may Allāh be pleased with them) did not condemn the laymen for following a [Companion] without adherence [to him].

46. Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar bin Raslān al-Bulqīnī (died 805 A.H.) said (taken from Fayḍ 'l-Qadīr Sharḥ 'l-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr by al-Munāwī (died 1031 A.H.), Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1/211, 2nd edition, 1391 A.H.):I do not give the ruling [in favour] of the circular effect, but if one follows [a scholar] who takes the view of divorce not occurring, it would be fine and Allāh Most High would not hold him to account, because nobody, when following [a scholar], can be punished over debatable subsidiaries.

47. Abū 'l-Baqā' Muḥammad bin Mūsā bin ʿĪsā al-Damīrī (died 808 A.H.) said (Al-Najm al-Wahhāj Fī Sharḥ 'l-Minhāj, 10/152, Dār 'l-Minhāj Jeddah, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):[After] the schools have been compiled… is it permissible for a follower to switch from one school to another? The most correct position is that of permissibility, like the one who follows [one Mujtahid vis-à-vis] the prayer direction for some days and [another] for [other] days.

48. Abū Zurʿah Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm bin 'l-Ḥusayn al-ʿIrāqī (died 826 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyat 'l-Bannānī ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-Maḥallī ʿAlā Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ by al-Bannānī (died 1198 A.H.), 2/395, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition, 1402 A.H.):[The permissibility of following a lesser Mujtahid] is the famous position.

49. Ibn 'l-Muqri' Ismaʿīl bin Abī Bakr al-Yamanī (837 A.H.) said (taken from Ḥāshiyat 'l-Ramlī ʿAlā Asnā 'l-Maṭālib Sharḥ Rawḍ 'l-Ṭālib by Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī (died 926 A.H.), 4/286, Dār 'l-Kitāb al-ʿArabī Beirut edition):It is permissible [for a non-Mujtahid] to follow whichever Mujtahid he likes if [those] schools [of theirs] are properly compiled, and he may switch from his school [to another], but he should not seek out dispensations.

50. Al-Ḥusayn bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān al-Badr al-Ahdal (died 855 A.H.) said (taken from Mukhtaṣar 'l-Fawā'id al-Makkiyyah by al-Saqqāf (died 1335 A.H.), pg. 47, Dār 'l-Bashā'ir al-Islāmiyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):As per the correct position, all the actions of laymen in worship, transactions and other things, so long as they do not go against consensus, are legal and correct, so long as they are in accordance with [the opinion of] a reliable Imām…

51. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin Aḥmad al-Maḥallī (died 864 A.H.) said (Al-Badr al-Ṭāliʿ Fī Ḥall Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, 2/399-400, Mu'assasat 'l-Risālah Beirut, 1st edition, 1426 A.H.):Due to [what has been said] here [i.e.] this chosen categorisation [vis-à-vis the obligation of asking the superior or jointly-superior jurist]… we say [that he does not have to search for the most preferred] Mujtahid as he is not fixated, as opposed to those who categorically prohibited [asking the jurist who is lesser overall].

52. Ibn Imām 'l-Kāmiliyyah Abū Muḥammad Muḥammad bin Muḥammad al-Qāhirī (died 874 A.H.) said (Taysīr 'l-Wuṣūl Ilā Minhāj 'l-Uṣūl, 6/345, Dār 'l-Fārūq al-Ḥadīthah Cairo, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.):As for when another situation arises for him other than [the first one], the most correct position is that it is permissible for him to ask another [scholar] other than the one he asked in the previous situation.

53. Ibn Qāwān al-Ḥusayn bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad al-Makkī (died 889 A.H.) said (Al-Taḥqīqāt Fī Sharḥ 'l-Waraqāt, pg. 644, Dār 'l-Nafā'is Amman, 1st edition, 1420 A.H.):The truth is that it is not necessary to adopt a school; rather one can ask whomsoever he likes, but without constantly picking out dispensations.

54. Khālid bin ʿAbd 'llāh al-Azharī (died 905 A.H.) said (Al-Thimār al-Yawāniʿ ʿAlā Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, 2/431, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs Morocco, 1427 A.H.):The first opinion is that he may not exit from [his school], even though it was not necessary for him to have adhered to it [in the first place]…

55. Ibn Abī Sharīf Abu 'l-Maʿālī Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Abī Bakr al-Maqdisī (died 906 A.H.) said (Al-Durar al-Lawāmiʿ Fī Taḥrīr Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1281, pg. 158):… [T]he applicability of the three opinions [vis-à-vis the issue of asking another scholar, i.e. permissibility, prevention, and differentiation] is where one has not already acted on [an opinion], as it is categorically impermissible for him to withdraw from [an opinion he has already acted].

56. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin Aḥmad al-Samhūdī (died 911 A.H.) said (Al-ʿIqd al-Farīd Fī Aḥkām 'l-Taqlīd, pg. 63, Dār 'l-Minhāj Jeddah, 1st edition, 1432 A.H.):When there are a number of people qualified for being followed, would it be necessary for the one wanting to follow to exercise Ijtihād in taking the opinion of the most knowledgeable, or can he choose? There are two positions; the most correct of them is the second.

57. ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Abī Bakr al-Suyūṭī (died 911 A.H.) said:- As for referring to someone else in an issue other than that [first one], the most correct position is that of its permissibility.(Sharḥ 'l-Kawkab al-Sāṭiʿ, 2/429, Maktabat 'l-Īmān edition, 1420 A.H.)- The most correct position is the permissibility of switching in both what he has practised and what he has not… with the stipulation of not constantly searching for dispensations… so when a Muqallid of al-Shāfiʿī washes the impurity of a dog according to his school, [then] he wanted to switch after that and follow another [school], he may do so with the stipulation of taking care of that school in regards to all its stipulations in purification and prayer, i.e. wiping the whole head [as per the position of the Mālikīs], or a quarter of it [as per the position of the Ḥanafīs], rubbing [as per the position of the Mālikīs], taking care of sequencing in making up for prayers [as per

the position of the Ḥanafīs]; if he falls short in any of that, his prayer would be void by the agreement of both [our school and the other school].(Al-Ḥāwī Li-'l-Fatāwā, 1/296, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1403 A.H.)

58. Abū Yaḥyā Zakariyyā bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad al-Anṣārī (died 926 A.H.) said (Ghāyat 'l-Wuṣūl and Sharḥ Lubb 'l- Uṣūl, pg. 160, Dār 'l-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah al-Kubrā Cairo, 1st edition, 1334 A.H.):After [learning] the necessity for a Muqallid to adhere to one school, the most correct position is that he may exit [the school] in those issues where he has not acted [upon the school’s ruling], because adhering to that which is not necessary [in the first place] is not binding.

59. Abū 'l-Ḥasan ʿAlī bin Muḥammad bin ʿĪsā al-Ashmūnī (died 929 A.H.) said (Al-Badr al-Lāmiʿ Sharḥ Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, pg. 67, Maṭbaʿah 'l-Saʿādah Cairo, 1st edition, 1332 A.H.):And it is permissible to refer to the opinion of another [scholar] other than the first in another [matter] as per the most balanced position.

60. Al-Muzajjad Abū 'l-Surūr Aḥmad bin ʿUmar bin Muḥammad al-Zabīdī (died 930 A.H.) said (Al-ʿUbāb al-Muḥīt Bi-Muʿẓam Nuṣūṣ 'l-Shāfiʿī Wa-'l-Aṣḥāb, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1494, pg. 120):If a layman holds on to a school, he must stay in accordance with it; otherwise, he must adopt a specific school out of the Four, not out of desire or by [merely] following one’s forefathers. He then may switch to another in totality or in some issues, but constantly searching for dispensations is illegal.

61. Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Ḥamzah al-Ramlī (died 957 A.H.) said (Ghāyat 'l-Ma'mūl Fī Sharḥ Waraqāt 'l- Uṣūl, Houghton Library, Harvard University Cambridge manuscript number 1613. MS Arab 302, seq. 129):[After] the schools are compiled, [if] a Muqallid wants to switch from one school to another, it would be permissible. If he follows another Mujtahid in other issues, it would be permissible, but he should not constantly seek out dispensations… [If there is another jurist in the city], it would not [be necessary for him to adhere to the first jurist’s verdict], as he has the right to ask another scholar.

62. Abū Makhramah ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'llāh al-ʿAdanī (died 972 A.H.) said (taken from Fatḥ 'l-Muʿīn Bi-Sharḥ Qurrat 'l-ʿAyn Bi-Muhimmāt 'l-Din by al-Mulaybārī (died 987 A.H.), pg. 223, Markaz Tawʿiyat 'l-Fiqh al-Islāmī, Hyderabad Deccan, 2nd edition, 1424 A.H.):This prerequisite we have mentioned [regarding the necessity of following all the stipulations another Imām may have placed on an action when following him] has been explicated by more than one person from the researchers amongst the scholars of Uṣūl and law…

63. Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī Abū 'l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin ʿAlī al-Makkī (died 974 A.H.) said: - It is clear that it would be specified on the one wanting to [combine prayers due to illness as Ibn 'l-Muqri' preferred] to follow Aḥmad, not the [Shāfiʿī scholars ranking as] choosers [in the school], as they cannot be followed, nor the non-famous position as [one’s] Mujtahid [Imām] cannot be followed in those opinions which he [himself] has weakened.(Fatḥ 'l-Jawād Bi-Sharḥ 'l-Irshād, 1/296, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah, 1st edition, 1426 A.H.)- If a woman enters her menstrual period prior to the Circumambulation of Return, and she is harmed by being left behind [from her caravan], it is permissible for her to travel. She would

remain liable for the circumambulation as long as she does not follow Abū Ḥanīfah (may Allāh be pleased with him). If she does not follow him, she would remain in her consecration: it would not be legal for the husband to [libidinously] approach her, unless she reaches a distance whereby it would be difficult for her to travel back to Makkah, in which case she can become legal like the one prevented from pilgrimage would become legal. She would trim her hair and slaughter with the intention of becoming legal, and intercourse with her would be legal.(Al-Fatāwā al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubrā by al-Haytamī (died 974 A.H.), 2/91, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut edition)- Following in itself is enough to legalise; it does not [even] require a [court] ruling to accompany it. What results is that following in and of itself makes [things] permissible.(Al-Fatāwā al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubrā by al-Haytamī (died 974 A.H.), 3/335, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut edition)- As for according to the correct position – which is having an unrestricted choice [in choosing between scholars], and the permissibility of switching to any one of the reliable schools, even out of desire [i.e. for no particular religious reason], so long as he is not searching for dispensations… – he may switch to an opposing [ruling] by following [the Imām] who adopted it… despite having passed ruling [according to another opinion], so long as that does not result in a following mix-up that brings about the invalidity of the scenario by the combined legal positions of both schools.(Al-Fatāwā al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubrā by al-Haytamī (died 974 A.H.), 4/289, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut edition)- The [Shāfiʿī] who performs an act of worship [in a manner that throws] its validity into dispute without following [a non-Shāfiʿī scholar] who opined for its validity must repeat it, as his attempt at the practice of [this act of worship] would have been useless. By [this], it is learned that this [ruling of repeating the act of worship] is for when he knows of its invalidity whilst he was engaged in [the act], as he would only have been messing around in that state. Thus, the one who touched his private part, then forgot [about it] and prayed, is precluded: he may follow Abū Ḥanīfah regarding the [non-obligation] of making up [for the prayer] if [Abū Ḥanīfah’s] position is the validity of his prayer, despite not having [intently] followed him during [prayer]; otherwise, he would have been messing around according to [Abū Ḥanīfah] as well.(Ḥawāshī Tuḥfat 'l-Muḥtāj Bi-Sharḥ 'l-Minhāj, 10/113, al-Maktabah al-Tijāriyyah al-Kubrā Cairo, 1st edition, 1357 A.H.)

64. Ibn Ziyād al-Zabīdī Abū al-Ḍiyā' ʿAbd 'l-Rahmān bin ʿAbd 'l-Karīm bin Ibrāhīm al-Maqṣarī (died 975 A.H.) said: - The damaging [scenario of] combining is only when it occurs in a single issue, like when one, performing ablution, follows Abū Ḥanīfah in the issue of touching private parts, and al-Shāfiʿī in phlebotomy. His prayer would be void in that case due to the agreement of both Imāms on his legal [im]purity. As for when combining is [in] two [separate] matters, like purification from legal impurity and purification from real impurity, it appears that [combining in this scenario] is not damaging, as the two Imāms are not united on his legal [im]purity. [Objection] should not [be raised] that they agreed on the illegality of his prayer, because we [would respond by] saying that this has risen from the mixing of two [separate] matters, and this is not damaging to [his] following, as the example [the scholars] provided [which support this] explains. In the edicts of al-Bulqīnī, I [read soemthing] requiring that joining up two issues is not damaging.(Taken from Fatḥ 'l-Muʿīn Bi-Sharḥ Qurrat 'l-ʿAyn Bi-Muhimmāt 'l-Din by al-Mulaybārī (died 987 A.H.), pg. 223-224, Markaz Tawʿiyat 'l-Fiqh al-Islāmī, Hyderabad Deccan, 2nd edition, 1424 A.H.)- If something like a turban is made from a silver-coated thread, it would be prohibited, even if [the silver coat in which the thread was soaked] was not subject to fire [for melting]. However, if he followed Abū Ḥanīfah, it would be permissible as he permits the amount of four fingers from that.

(Taken from Bughyat 'l-Mustarshidīn by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn Bā-ʿAlawī (died 1320 A.H.), pg. 88, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition)

65. Muḥammad bin Aḥmad al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī (died 977 A.H.) said (Mughnī 'l-Muḥtāj Ilā Maʿrifat Maʿānī Alfāẓ 'l-Minhāj, 4/529, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition, 1418 A.H.):If he rules by other than the school of [the Imām] he follows, [his verdict] would not be overruled, based on the notion that a follower can follow whomsoever he likes.

66. 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…

67. Aḥmad bin Qāsim al-ʿAbbādī (died 994 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-ʿAbbādī ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-Maḥallī ʿAlā Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, 4/278, al-Maṭbaʿah al-Amīriyyah Cairo, 1st edition, 1289 A.H.):Perhaps the reason why the layman has been specifically mentioned [vis-à-vis the illegality of withdrawal from a Mujtahid’s position he has already acted on] is because it is more befitting for this issue that is based on the non-adherence to a specific school, as the forthcoming statement of the commentator [i.e. al-Maḥallī] suggests. This is derived from what has previously come with regards to a non-adherent, as non-adherence is more befitting of a layman [since he has no school] as opposed to a scholar…

68. Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin Ḥamzah al-Ramlī (died 1004 A.H.) said (Nihāyat 'l-Muḥtāj Ilā Sharḥ 'l-Minhāj, 1/47, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 3rd edition, 1424 A.H.):The requirement of our school… is the prevention of [following another school outside the Four] in judicature and jurisconsultancy, not [one’s personal] practice per se… This is not contradicted by the statement of Ibn 'l-Ḥājib [and] al-Āmidi, “Whosoever practices on the opinion of an Imām in an issue, it is by agreement impermissible for him to practice on the opinion of another in [that issue]”, as that is specifically [for] when the effects of the first practice remain [in a manner that], coupled with the second practice, necessitates the construction of a [legal outcome] that neither Imām agrees with, like following al-Shāfiʿī in wiping some of the head, and Mālik in the purity of dogs, in one prayer…

69. Abū Bakr bin Muḥammad Shaṭā al-Dimyāṭī (died 1013 A.H.) said (Iʿānat 'l-Ṭālibīn ʿAlā Ḥall Alfāẓ Fatḥ al-Muʿīn, 4/218, al-Maṭbaʿah al-Maymaniyyah, 1st edition, 1319 A.H.):It is not required to take the name of [the Imām one is about to follow]; rather whenever the person practising feels that his action is in accordance with the opinion of an Imām, he would have [correctly] followed him. [Following] has six prerequisites…

70. Muḥammad ʿAbd 'l-Ra'ūf bin Tāj 'l-ʿĀrifīn bin ʿAlī al-Munāwī (died 1031 A.H.) said (Fayḍ 'l-Qadīr Sharḥ 'l-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1/210, 2nd edition, 1391 A.H.):A non-Mujtahid must follow a particular school. The subject matter of… the prophetic narration “Difference is mercy” is the permissibility of switching from one school to another: the correct position according to the Shāfiʿīs is that of its permissibility. However, it is not permissible to follow the Companions, or the Tābiʿūn for that matter… in judicature and jurisconsultancy… [but]

it is permissible for a non-layman jurist following [one of the schools] to follow [an Imām] outside the Four [Schools] for his personal practice.

71. Abū Bakr bin Abī 'l-Qāsim al-Ahdal (died 1035 A.H.) said (taken from Mukhtaṣar 'l-Fawā'id al-Makkiyyah by al-Saqqāf (died 1335 A.H.), pg. 48, Dār 'l-Bashā'ir al-Islāmiyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):Regarding the ruling [al-Badr al-Ahdal] gave regarding the layman not possessing a specified school, the [school’s] official ruling is virtually positioned itself on it insofar as laymen are concerned even though, according to the later scholars, the position that has been considered as the correct one is that it is obligatory on him to adhere a specific school. But those who are aware of the state of laymen in this era – especially the ones living in the rural areas – will be convinced that to force them to adhere to one specific school is close to impossible, and that the ruling al-Badr al-Ahdal gave is specified [as the official] position: a layman has no specified school [of his own].

72. ʿUmar bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥīm al-Baṣrī (died 1037 A.H.) said (Fatāwā ʿUmar al-Baṣrī, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1851, pg. 2 and pg. 30): - In the school of Imām al-Shāfiʿī (may Allāh be pleased with him), the reliable position in jurisconsultancy is that a small amount of water would become impure by merely coming into contact [with impurity, like the impure earth in question]. The position of Imām Mālik (may Allāh be pleased with him) is that it would not become impure without changing. It would be appropriate for the one in need of [such] water to follow him. The meaning of following is to take the opinion of a Mujtahid and to practice on it. Whenever a person practising feels that his action is in accordance to the opinion of an Imām, he would have [correctly] followed him – he would not be in need of orally mentioning [that he is following that particular Imām in that instance; rather the intention of the heart would be sufficient]…- In conclusion, there is no escaping for us, or for those of our like who have fallen short of the level of preference, the notion that the [preferred position is of the follower] being given a choice [between scholars. This comes] on top of the fact it is the reliable position of the Imāms of the school as has been established. On top of this, if we were to take the non-preferred position of obliging the search for the most knowledgeable – [which in itself is weak] due to the extreme hardship [that would occur] in locating the most knowledgeable… – then the [preference process] between two live persons in front of one’s eyes is extremely difficult in itself, so how about [the preference process] between two dead persons? Overall, the reliable position – which is the safest and most closer to piety – is what has been established i.e. of one being given a choice. It is the [position] upon which the pious predecessors went…

73. Aḥmad bin Aḥmad bin Salāmah al-Qalyūbī (died 1069 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyatā Qalyūbī Wa-ʿAmīrah ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-Maḥallī ʿAlā Minhāj 'l-Ṭālibīn, 2/52, Maṭbaʿat Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī Cairo, 3rd edition, 1375 A.H.):On the first night, it would be good to intend for ‘the fast of the month of Ramaḍān’, or ‘the fast of the whole Ramaḍān’, so that the following of Imām Mālik – for example – would benefit him on a [night] in which he forgets to make intention; [such an intention], according to [Imām Mālik], is sufficient for the whole month; according to us, the first night only.

74. Ibn 'l-Jammāl ʿAlī bin Abī Bakr bin ʿAlī bin Abī Bakr al-Khazrajī al-Makkī (died 1072 A.H.) said (Fatḥ 'l-Majīd Bi-Aḥkām 'l-Taqlīd, pg. 15, Markaz Tawʿiyat 'l-Fiqh al-Islāmī, Hyderabad Deccan, 1st edition, 1423 A.H.):

From what supports it is what is reported from Justice al-Ṭabarī, where he followed Imām Aḥmad in [the issue of] prayer with [his clothes soiled with] bird droppings: it is known that [Justice al-Ṭabarī’s] purification was according to the school of Imām al-Shāfiʿī.

75. Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-Razzāq al-Maghribī al-Rashīdī (died 1096 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Rashīdī ʿAlā Nihāyat 'l-Muḥtāj Ilā Sharḥ 'l-Minhāj, 1/48, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 3rd edition, 1424 A.H.):… [He must prevent himself from intercourse with the first [wife] by following the Shāfiʿī [scholar] and from intercourse with the second [wife] by following the Ḥanafī [scholar]] i.e. when combining [the two sisters], as is the explicit ruling of [al-Ramlī’s] father, as opposed to when he [sexually] deserts the second [wife], i.e. even if he does not [divorce] her, he may still engage in intercourse with the first by following the Shāfiʿī.

76. ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin ʿAbd 'llāh Bā-Faqīh (died 1173 A.H.) said (taken from Bughyat 'l-Mustarshidīn by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn Bā-ʿAlawī (died 1320 A.H.), pg. 9 and 183, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition): - What appears from the discourse of the Imāms is that when the layman acts, believing that it is a legal ruling and is in accordance with a reliable school, it would be correct even if he did not know who exactly adopted that position, so long as he was not correctly [and intently] following another [Imām] during practice.- The second [type of lost persons] is the one who is most likely to have died, e.g. the one lost in battle, a ship he was on was wrecked, or he went out to perform the Night Prayer and went missing, [in which case] he would be given respite for four years, after which his wealth would be distributed and his wives would [be able to] remarry. So if a jurisconsult advises the lost person’s heirs follow the Ḥanbalīs if he is of this type [of lost persons], there would not be a problem, as the layman has no school of his own, but rather he can take the edict of whichever scholar of the [various] schools gives him the ruling, but [only] with the preconditions of following [another school].

77. Muḥammad bin Sulaymān al-Kurdī al-Madanī (died 1194 A.H.) said: - When there is an excess of hardship in adhering to our school, there is no blame for the one wanting to escape [it] by following another school, like the school of Aḥmad, as he allows dealing in [the unharvested crop, like giving wages out of it] before the pre-harvest crop assessment and the post-evaluation liability verdict, [and he also allows for the crop owner] and his family to eat from it like normal, and this would not be counted against him…(Quoting al-Haytamī (died 974 A.H.), al-Ḥawāshī al-Madaniyyah ʿAlā al-Minhāj al-Qawīm Sharḥ 'l-Muqaddimah al-Ḥaḍramiyyah, 2/113, al-Maṭbaʿah al-Amīriyyah Cairo, 1st edition, 1288 A.H.)- It is permissible to follow post-practice with two conditions: that he is not in a state of knowledge during practice regarding the invalidity of [the one he was then following], rather he acted on the invalidator out of forgetfulness or was ignorant of [his practice’s] invalidity and was excused due to it; and that the Imām he wants to follow if of the opinion of following post-practice, so one wanting to follow Abū Ḥanīfah post-practice must ask the Ḥanafīs regarding its permissibility – asking the Shāfiʿīs would not be of assistance to him in that case as he would be wanting to enter the Ḥanafī School. The necessity of the presence of [other] known prerequisites for following, on top of these two, is [also required].(Taken from Bughyat 'l-Mustarshidīn by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn Bā-ʿAlawī (died 1320 A.H.), pg. 9 and 106, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition)

78. Sulaymān bin Yaḥyā al-Ahdal (died 1197 A.H.) said:

- As per the correct position, all the actions of laymen in worship, transactions and other things – so long as they do not go against consensus – are legal and correct, as long as they are in accordance with [the opinion of] a reliable Imām…(Quoting al-Badr al-Ahdal (died 855 A.H.), taken from Mukhtaṣar 'l-Fawā'id al-Makkiyyah by al-Saqqāf (died 1335 A.H.), pg. 47, Dār 'l-Bashā'ir al-Islāmiyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.)- So if she… intended to follow [Mālik and Aḥmad] in regards to [washing the hair in major ablution] post-sexual defilement, and Mālik in regards to [the same after] the menstruation, it would be permissible along with its preconditions [according to Mālik].(Taken from Bughyat 'l-Mustarshidīn by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn Bā-ʿAlawī (died 1320 A.H.), pg. 27, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition)

79. ‘Abd 'l-Raḥmān bin Jādallāh al-Bannānī (died 1198 A.H.), quoting Abū Zurʿah al-ʿIrāqī (died 826 A.H.), said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Bannānī ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-Maḥallī ʿAlā Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ, 2/395, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition, 1402 A.H.):[The permissibility of following a lesser Mujtahid] is the famous position.

80. ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Sulaymān bin Yaḥyā al-Ahdal (died 1250 A.H.) said (Fatāwā 'l-Ahdal, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7853, pg. 279):As for following in personal practice, it is permissible [to follow another school] with its prerequisites, as opposed to following [another school] in judicature and jurisconsultancy.

81. Ḥasan bin Muḥammad al-ʿAṭṭār (died 1250 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-ʿAṭṭār ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-Maḥallī, 2/440, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut edition):The presumption in this issue and that which has passed is it is in relation to the layman who is not an adherent to the school of the Imām in which he has followed him in some issue, like a Shāfiʿī [in one issue] following Mālik or Abū Ḥanīfah in some [other] issue.

82. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Sulaymān al-Ahdal (died 1258 A.H.), quoting his father (died 1250 A.H.) said (Fatāwā 'l-Ahdal, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 7853, pg. 279):As for following in personal practice, it is permissible [to follow another school] with its prerequisites, as opposed to following [another school] in judicature and jurisconsultancy.

83. ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿUmar bin Abī Bakr bin Yaḥyā al-ʿAlawī al-Ḥaḍramī (died 1265 A.H.) said (taken from Bughyat 'l-Mustarshidīn by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn Bā-ʿAlawī (died 1320 A.H.), pg. 9, 68 and 205, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition): - Whosoever follows one who can be correctly followed in an issue, his prayer would be valid in his belief; in fact, in our belief [as well], as we would not criminalise him, nor would we count him from those who miss prayer. If he had not followed him and we learned that his action was in accordance with a reliable school, then likewise [his prayer would be valid] according to the opinion that a layman is not in possession of a school.- By having followed the one who opined for the correctness [of his prayer], he would be entitled to that place [in the row ahead] on the basis of first-come. The same applies [when] he was not following [anybody], because a layman has no school of his own. It is therefore realised that whosoever stands in a row, it is not permissible to move him away unless it is known that his prayer is invalid by consensus, or he [himself] is of the belief of its invalidity during engagement.- It is permissible to follow [Abū Ḥanīfah] in [non-ascendants] marrying off [the girl], even without necessity, but with the meeting of its prerequisites, which are: the knowledge of the components of marriage in the school of the followed [Imām]; to abide by his school in that issue and

whatever is connected to it, like divorce and incestuous assimilation; and not [following this other Imām as a result of] constantly searching for dispensations.

84. ʿAbd 'llāh bin 'l-Ḥusayn bin ʿAbd 'llāh Bā-Faqīh (died 1266 A.H.) said (taken from Bughyat 'l-Mustarshidīn by ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn Bā-ʿAlawī (died 1320 A.H.), pg. 8 and 11, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut, 1st edition): - The famous position is the permissibility of following a lesser scholar despite the presence of the superior scholar.- [If] a group performed ablution with a small amount of water, then they saw some sheep excess [in the ablution utensil] after prayer, it would be permissible for them to follow – with the prerequisites [of following as previously mentioned] – those who are of the opinion that water does not become impure at all unless it changes. These people include a lot of Companions, the Tābiʿūn and the jurists, like ʿAlī, Ibn ʿAbbās, Abū Hurayrah, al-Ḥasan, Ibn 'l-Musayyab, ʿIkrimah, Ibn Abī Laylā, Mālik, al-Awzāʿī and al-Thawrī, due to the saying of [the Prophet] (peace be upon him), “Water has been created as a purifier. Nothing except that which overcomes its taste, colour or odour can render it impure.” The practice in the Ḥaramayn and the West is on this, and [the aforementioned Imāms] are sufficient[ly qualified] enough to be followed. [This is] on top of the fact that a group amongst the Shāfiʿīs took the [same] position of the purity of a consumable’s waste…

85. Saʿīd bin Muḥammad al-Ḥaḍramī Bā-ʿAlī Bā-ʿIshn (died 1270 A.H.) said (Bushrā 'l-Karīm Bi-Sharḥ Masā'il 'l-Taʿlīm: Sharḥ 'l-Muqaddimah al-Ḥaḍramiyyah, pg. 545, Dār 'l-Minhāj Jeddah, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):If would be [good] for the one not having [intended fast] to make intention before [the sun’s] decline, before he takes to a fast breaker, so that [his fast] would be valid for him as per the position of Abū Ḥanīfah. However, he must [have the intention to] follow him. If would also be [good] to make intention for fasting the whole of Ramaḍān on [its] first night as per the position of Mālik – as that would be sufficient for the whole month [as per Mālik’s opinion] – and to follow him, lest he forgets intention by night in some of the nights [of Ramaḍān].

86. Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm al-ʿAlījī al-Qalhātī (died pre-1275 A.H.) said (taken from Mukhtaṣar 'l-Fawā'id al-Makkiyyah by al-Saqqāf (died 1335 A.H.), pg. 40-42, Dār 'l-Bashā'ir al-Islāmiyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):There are six prerequisites of following… The sixth is that he does not mix up two opinions in a manner that brings about a hybrid outcome neither Imām subscribes to, like following al-Shāfiʿī in wiping some of the head, and Mālik in the purity of dogs, for one prayer.

87. Ibrāhīm bin Muḥammad bin Aḥmad al-Bājūrī (died 1277 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī ʿAlā Sharḥ Ibn 'l-Qāsim al-Ghazzī ʿAlā Matn Abī 'l-Shujāʿ, 1/553, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 2nd edition, 1420 A.H.):A Shāfiʿī can follow [Mālik] in [the issue of making intention for fasting the whole month of Ramaḍān on its first night], so that he does not forget making intention in any one night and would thus require making up [for it as per the Shāfiʿī position].

88. Umar bin Muḥammad al-Ṭarābīshī (died 1285 A.H.) said (Nafaḥāt 'l-Khuzām ʿAlā Hidāyat 'l-Ghulām, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 6209, pg. 136):That which has become famous – i.e. that landowners taking out the tithe would have [the obligation of] alms discharged from them according to the position of Abū Ḥanīfah, whom they follow [in this regard] and thus do not give alms – … think they have avoided alms in grains and

dates, whereas none of this [alleviation from the obligation] would have occurred, because in al-Ṭaḥṭāwī on al-Durr al-Mukhtār, [it quotes] al-Zāhidī [(died 658 A.H.)] in al-Ḥāwī stating that the tithe is not discharged if taken from citizens by corrupt agents and unjust officials [who] do not spend it on its recipients, but rather on themselves these days…

89. Muḥammad bin Aḥmad bin ʿAbd 'l-Bārī al-Ahdal (died 1298 A.H.) said (Nashr 'l-Aʿlām Sharḥ 'l-Bayān Wa-'l-Iʿlām Bi-Muhimmāt Aḥkām 'l-Islām, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 1193, 1/64):There is no problem for a layman in following [an Imām] in individual issues other than the one whose school he adheres to, whether his following is of one of the Four Imāms or others whose positions in that issue have been preserved and compiled long enough so that its stipulations and all its considerations are known. The consensus reported by multiple [scholars] regarding the prevention of following the Companions is to be understood as when its ascription to the one who is eligible to be followed is not known, or is known but some of its prerequisites according to him are unknown.

90. ‘Abd 'l-Ḥamīd bin Ḥusayn al-Sharwānī al-Makkī (died 1301 A.H.) said (Ḥawāshī Tuḥfat 'l-Muḥtāj Bi-Sharḥ 'l-Minhāj, 10/110, al-Maktabah al-Tijāriyyah al-Kubrā Cairo, 1st edition, 1357 A.H.):It has been mentioned before that the most preferred position is that of a choice between the two [conflicting jurisconsults] insofar as practice is concerned.

91. Aḥmad Daḥlān bin Abd 'llāh al-Tarmasī al-Fājītānī (died between 1310 A.H.?) said (Fatḥ 'l-Majīd Fī Bayān 'l-Taqlīd, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 4061, pg. 3):There is no problem in following [an Imām] in individual issues other than the one whose school he adheres to, whether his following is of one of the Four Imāms or others whose positions in that issue have been preserved and compiled long enough so that its stipulations and all its considerations are known.

92. Abū ʿAbd 'l-Muʿṭī Muḥammad bin ʿUmar Nawawī al-Jāwī (died 1316 A.H.) said (Nihāyat 'l-Zayn Fī Irshād 'l-Mubtadi'īn ʿAlā Qurrat 'l-ʿAyn Bi-Muhimmāt 'l-Dīn, pg. 36, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1422 A.H.):The position of Imām Aḥmad is permissibility for the one in major legal impurity, having performed minor ablution, to stay in the mosque without necessity; it is permissible [for a Shāfiʿī] to follow [Imām Aḥmad in this matter].

93. ʿAlawī bin Aḥmad al-Saqqāf al-Makkī (died 1335 A.H.) said (Mukhtaṣar 'l-Fawā'id al-Makkiyyah, pg. 39, Dār 'l-Bashā'ir al-Islāmiyyah Beirut, 1st edition, 1425 A.H.):In individual issues, there is no problem in following a scholar other than the school he adheres to.

94. Muḥammad Maḥfūẓ bin ʿAbd 'llāh bin ʿAbd 'l-Mannān al-Jāwī al-Tarmasī (died 1338 A.H.) said (Isʿāf 'l-Maṭāliʿ Bi-Sharḥ 'l-Badr al-Lāmiʿ Sharḥ Jamʿ 'l-Jawāmiʿ – from the fifth chapter on Istidlāl to the end of the seventh chapter on Ijtihād, pg. 573, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1424 A.H.):The preferred opinion out of [these] is the opinion of [the obligation of taking from] the superior scholar…

95. 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.

96. Abū ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Raḥmān bin Ḥasan bin Abd 'l-Bārī al-Ahdal (died 1352 A.H.) said (ʿUmdat 'l-Muftī Wa-'l-Mustaftī, 4/90, online manuscript, tinyurl.com/cc4wueh, retrieved 5/9/2012; published by Dār 'l-Minhāj Jeddah, 1st edition, 1429 A.H.):According to the most correct position, it is permissible for him to follow other than the school he adhered to, so long as he does not constantly search for dispensations.

97. 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.)

98. Muḥammad Saʿīd Ramaḍān al-Būṭī (born 1929 C.E.) said (Al-Lā-Madhhabiyyah Akhṭar Bidʿah Tuhaddid al-Sharīʿah al-Islāmiyyah, pg. 105-108, Dār 'l-Fārābī Damascus, 1426 A.H. edition):The obligation of the person ignorant of the ruling’s evidence is to follow as we mentioned. The matter is unrestricted as is evident from the indication of [Allāh] Most High’s statement, “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know.” So as long as the ignorant asks the People of Remembrance and follows them in their edict and position, he would have implemented the order of Allah that is directed at him, whether he adhered to one specific Imām or not, and regardless of whether his adherence [to the Imām] was due to his close proximity and accessibility to [his school], or out of a confidence he had in his opinions and school. If he believes he must follow one specific Imām without ever moving away from him or swapping him for another, he is mistaken; if he believes it to be law from Allah without having followed a mistaken Mujtahid in this belief of his, he would have sinned… Allāh Most High did not burden him with any more than that, i.e. He did not burden him with any type of adherence – the adherence to change Imāms [all the time], or the perpetual adherence to one [Imām]… [Both] adherences, [i.e.] to one Imām and to changing Imāms, is a rule that is in excess of the original principle, which is the obligation to follow. [Adherence either way] requires evidence, for which there is none… Any stipulation that is in excess of the content of the evidence is an innovation and a false creation that should not be taken seriously. The Messenger (peace be upon him) said in what has been authentically reported from him, “Every stipulation not in the Book of Allāh is rejected, even if it is one hundred stipulations”… When [the ignorant layman] knows that the legislator did not burden him with adherence either way, he would be on the truth, regardless of whether he [in practice] adheres to one specific Imām and does not move away from him, or whether his habit is one of switching from one Imām to another.

99. Wahbah bin Muṣṭafā al-Zuḥaylī “al-Shāfiʿī al-Ashʿarī” (born 1932 C.E.) said (Uṣūl 'l-Fiqh al-Islāmī, 2/1139, Dār 'l-Fikr Damascus, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.):This most correct position is the opinion [that says] it is permissible to go against one’s Imām at a micro-level [i.e. in individual issues].

100. Regarding Muḥammad bin Shāfiʿ al-Fudālī (1236 A.H.), al-Bājūrī (died 1277 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī ʿAlā Sharḥ Ibn 'l-Qāsim al-Ghazzī ʿAlā Matn Abī 'l-Shujāʿ, 2/379, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 2nd edition, 1420 A.H.):For the newborn’s sacrificial offering, our teacher used to… draw an analogy from festival sacrificial offering, instructing the [poor person] who just had a newborn, “Slaughter a cock as per the position of Ibn ʿAbbās.”

101. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Dā'im al-Birmāwī (died 831 A.H.) said (taken from al-Taḥbīr Sharḥ 'l-Taḥrīr by al-Mardāwī (died 885 A.H.), 8/4081, Maktabat 'l-Rushd Riyadh, 1st edition, 1421 A.H.): He may follow the lesser scholar if he [forcibly makes himself] believe he is superior [to the superior scholar] or [at least] equal [to him].

102. Aḥmad bin Aḥmad al-Ṭībī (died 979 A.H.) said (Al-Ṣaḥīfah Fī-Mā Yaḥtāj Ilayh al-Shāfiʿī Fī Taqlīd Abī Ḥanīfah, Ministry of Awqāf Egypt, Central Library for Islāmic Manuscripts, manuscript no. 514): Realise that it is permissible for the one who followed a Mujtahid scholar out of the people to follow another [Mujtahid scholar], except when he is of the belief the one he followed first is more knowledgeable than the second, in which case prevention would be evident.

103. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'llāh ʿAlī Bāzī al-Zabīdī (died 1400 A.H.) commentated on in his book called Sharḥ Abyāt 'l-Ṣaḥīfah Fī-Mā Yaḥtāj Ilayh al-Shāfiʿī Fī Taqlīd Abī Ḥanīfah 

104. Muḥammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Rasūl bin Qalandar al-Ḥusaynī al-Barzanjī al-Madanī (died 1103 A.H.) said in his al-Ighārah al-Muṣbiḥah and Ghāyat 'l-Iʿtidhār (taken from al-Wasm Fī Ḥukm 'l-Washm by Aḥmad bin Aḥmad bin Ismāʿīl al-Khalījī al-Ḥalwānī (died 1308 A.H.), Azhar University Cairo manuscript 48382(?), pg. 154 (manuscript page count starts from 126)): The correct position – upon which the researchers in all schools are, [and] against which [any position] is not to be considered – is that following the schools is allowed, whether pre-practice or post… This is what the researchers from the Imāms of the Shāfiʿīs are on, like al-ʿIzz bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām, al-Taqī al-Subkī and others; and al-Muḥaqqiq Ibn 'l-Humām, Shaykh Qāsim, and others from the Ḥanafīs. Other than this is narrow-mindedness and bigotry.

105. Muḥammad bin ʿAlī bin Manṣūr al-Shanawānī (died 1233 A.H.) said (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Shanawānī ʿAlā Sharḥ 'l-Laqqānī ʿAlā Jawharat 'l-Tawḥīd, King Saʿūd University Riyadh manuscript number 106, pg. 188): There are three opinions [in switching from one school to another]. It has been said it is categorically prevented; it has been said it is categorically permissible; and it has been said it is permissible if he does not combine the two schools in a manner that conflicts with consensus (like the one who marries without the marriage gift, marriage representative and witnesses, as nobody has opined for [the permissibility of] this scenario), believes superiority for the one whom he is following, and does not constantly seek out the dispensations of the schools, or otherwise it would be prevented.

106. Regarding Muḥammad bin Shāfiʿ al-Fudālī (1236 A.H.), al-Bājūrī (died 1277 A.H.) said: - For the newborn’s sacrificial offering, our teacher used to… draw an analogy from festival sacrificial offering, instructing the [poor person] who just had a newborn, “Slaughter a cock as per the position of Ibn ʿAbbās.” (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī ʿAlā Sharḥ Ibn 'l-Qāsim al-Ghazzī ʿAlā Matn Abī 'l-Shujāʿ, 2/379, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 2nd edition, 1420 A.H.)

- Our teacher dictated a lovely piece on these two [Arabic] couplets [in the prerequisites of following another Imām]… [translated as, “Not constantly following dispensations; the formulation of a scenario that nobody opines; likewise, he should believe in the preference of the followed (Imām); and his following would be for a need. (With this, t)he numeration (of the prerequisites for following another Imām) is complete”] (Ḥāshiyat 'l-Imām al-Bayjūrī ʿAlā Jawharat 'l-Tawḥīd, pg. 251, Dār 'l-Kutub al-Jahliyyah Beirut, 2nd edition, 1420 A.H.)

107. Aḥmad bin Aḥmad bin Ismāʿīl al-Khalījī al-Ḥalwānī (died 1308 A.H.) wrote al-Wasm Fī Ḥukm 'l-Washm, and quoted his teacher al-Anbābī (died 1313 A.H.), who wrote a foreword for the book (Azhar University Cairo manuscript 48382(?))

108. Muḥammad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥusayn al-Anbābī (died 1313 A.H.) said in his al-Durr al-Farīd Fī Aḥkām 'l-Taqlīd (taken from al-Wasm Fī Ḥukm 'l-Washm by Aḥmad bin Aḥmad bin Ismāʿīl al-Khalījī al-Ḥalwānī (died 1308 A.H.), Azhar University Cairo manuscript 48382(?), pg. 147 (manuscript page count starts from 126)): After following any school, the preferred position is that it is permissible for him to switch from one school to another, i.e. even beyond the Four Schools… even by mere desire, whether he switches forever, or in one issue, or in part of an issue – even if he has passed verdict, ruled or acted against it – so long as mixing up etc. does not come about…

109. Regarding Aḥmad bin Aḥmad al-Ujhūrī (died 1293 A.H.), al-Bānī said (taken from ʿUmdat 'l-Taḥqīq Fī al-Taqlīd Wa-'l-Talfīq by al-Bānī (died 1351 A.H.), pg. 204, Dār 'l-Qādirī Damascus, 2nd edition, 1418 A.H.; al-Ujhūrī’s book printed by al-Maṭbaʿah al-Azhariyyah Cairo – 4th edition 1352 A.H.): The difference [in mixing up] has also been reported by… Shaykh Aḥmad al-Ujhūrī in his footnotes on Ḥawāshī 'l-Bājūrī.