Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue - The Layman Has No Madhab.

The Opinion of the Minority: The Layman is Obliged to Follow a Madhab:
This is a minority opinion from the Malikis, Shafi��is and Hanbalis, and a weak opinion, unworthy of being followed, due to the following reasons:

a) There is absolutely no evidence from the sources of Islam - the Qur��an, Sunnah, consensus (Ijma��) and analogy (qiyas) - nor a statement from one of the four Imams in support of this position.

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ��This is an ugly innovation, which was never claimed by anyone of the Imams of Islam, while they are the most high in ranking, and most respected, and the most knowledgeable of Allah and His Messenger �� to oblige the people with that.��

b) The only argument used by these scholars is the principle of ��blocking the means�� (Sadd al-Dhara��i) for the layman to pick and choose whatever he likes from opinions, and thereby, freeing himself from Shari�� responsibilities, resulting in chaos. However, the one who looks at this issue justly, realises that this is merely a case of extending Sadd al-Dhara��i beyond that which is necessary, like for one to prohibit the growing of grapes, in case people use it to make wine. Moreover, the Hanafis and Shafi��is - if they do not deny its use altogether - are extremely lenient in applying this principle, so how can they use this as a support for their position. On the other hand, most of those who do not oblige the layman, with that which Allah did not oblige him, explicitly forbid a layman from seeking and following allowances. Moreover, following allowances is as much applicable to a Mujtahid as it is to a layman, as is apparent from the opinion of al-Qadhi Abu Ya��la (see footnote #52) and therefore, obliging the layman alone with adherence to a Madhab is not a solution to the problem.

c) This opinion necessitates that a person may only ask a Mufti of his own Madhab, even if the Mufti of a different Madhab is more knowledgeable and pious, and the truth lies with him. This also makes unnecessary restrictions on the Mustafti and causes him unnecessary hardship.

Ibn Taymiyah says: ��Sticking to a Madhab necessitates obedience of other than the Prophet �� in all that he commands and forbids, and that is opposed to consensus (Ijma��).��

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ��This opinion necessitates the prohibition of asking the scholars of Madhabs different to his, as it equally necessitates the prohibition of adhering to a Madhab similar to, or better than, that of his Imam, as well as other things that this approach entails, the invalidity of which points to the invalidity of the opinion itself. In fact, it necessitates that if he sees a text from the Messenger of Allah �� or an opinion of the four Caliphs, aiding someone other than his Imam, that he should abandon the text and the opinions of the Companions, and give precedence to the one to whom he attributes himself.��

d) Those who oblige the layman with Taqleed of a Madhab say that he must make Ijtihad in choosing a Madhab and then follow it. Moreover, Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi from the Shafi��is and Ibn Hamdan from the Hanbalis say that the layman should not simply pick and choose a Madhab as he wishes, nor should he incline to the Madhab of his fore fathers. Undoubtedly, this opinion obliges something on a layman which he is unable to accomplish, since, for a layman to be capable of comparing between Madhabs requires him to possess knowledge of the principles of each Madhab, as well as some background information on its founder, his companions, some of the major books, and generally how close each of the Madhabs are to the revelation, and this, as is apparent, is obliging the Muqallid with that which is far beyond his capacity. Moreover, a layman must also look at the Madhab predominantly followed in his land; for if a layman decides to make Taqleed of the Hanbali Madhab, because he believes it closest to the truth, whilst he is a resident in a country which is predominantly Hanafi, then his ��Ijtihad�� in finding the most suitable Madhab will be pointless. Surely, the difficulty and inappropriateness of this methodology is only too obvious, as well as it being a divergence from what the layman is required to learn from the basics of the five pillars, to that which is of no benefit to him in this world or the next.

e) From the evil consequences of obliging the layman to compare between Madhabs is the spread of sectarianism and fanaticism in adherence to a Madhab. One cannot but notice sectarianism amongst the scholars who oblige the layman to make Taqleed of one of the Madhabs. Hence, Ibn al-Salah al-Shafi��i, while discussing this issue, claims to simplify the process of choosing the right Madhab, by arguing that because al-Shafi��i came after the great Imams like Abu Hanifah, Malik and others, he was able to look into their opinions, compare and evaluate, nor was he followed by someone else of his calibre; therefore, it follows that his Madhab is more worthy of being followed. Then came al-Nawawi, who summarised the work of Ibn al-Salah and included it in his Majmu��, using Ibn al-Salah��s argument in preferring the Shafi��i Madhab. Then came Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali, who relied much on Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi��s work, except that he replaced ��al-Shafi��i�� with ��Ahmad ibn Hanbal��, and further refuted the Shafi��is in their preference of the Shafi��i Madhab over other Madhabs, arguing that since Ahmad was the last of the Imams, he was able to investigate into the opinions of Abu Hanifah, Malik as well as al-Shafi��i, and then compare and evaluate them; and since there is none after Ahmad of his calibre, it follows that Ahmad��s Madhab is the most worthy of being followed!

Whereas the truth, as Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiya said, is that: ��Most of the people speak out of conjecture and what the hearts desire, for they do not know the reality of the levels of Imams and Sheikhs, nor do they intend to follow the truth completely; rather, everyone��s heart desires that he favours the one he follows, and so he prefers him (over other Imams) based on conjecture, even if he has no proof for that. Sometimes, it may even lead to quarrelling, fighting and disunity, which is something Allah and His Messenger �� prohibited.��

Indeed, it led to wars amongst the Hanafis and the Shafi��is in Asfahan that resulted in the burning and destruction of the city as reported in Mu��jam al-Buldan 1/209. Hanafis and Shafi��is are known for their rivalry throughout Islamic history. It was their fanaticism, which lead some of Hanafis to say: ��It is allowed for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi��i woman, but it is not allowed for a Shafi��i to marry a Hanafi woman. We regard them to be like the people of the Book��. Another fanatic, who was a Hanafi, saw in a dream that the Shafi��is will enter paradise before the Hanafis, so he became a Shafi��i. Even Imams such as al-Juwaini, wrote a book insulting the Hanafi Madhab and obliging everyone to follow the Shafi��i Madhab, which al-Kawthari - the ��Abu Hanifah fanatic�� V rebutted, insulting the Shafi��i Madhab; indeed, in some books, he went further than that and would even cast doubt on his lineage (as he did in his Ta��neeb), while the Prophet explicitly considered such behaviour to be from the acts of Jahiliyah!

Amongst the examples Hanafi fanaticism is what Muhammad ibn Musa al-Hanafi (d. 506) said: ��If I had the authority, I would have charged Jizya on the Shafi��is��. Some Hanafis fanatics even claimed that ��Isa - peace be upon him - would rule according to the Hanafi Madhab upon his return. Another one of them claimed that al-Khidr would attend the lessons of Abu Hanifah in the mornings, and after his death, he would go to Abu Hanifah��s grave to continue his lessons. Another one of them claimed that Allah called out to Abu Hanifah and said: ��You and all those adhering to your Madhab are forgiven��!

Amongst the signs of such fanaticism in the ranks of the Shafi��is is what al-Nawawi reported from al-Isfara��ini, that a Shafi��i may not pray behind a Hanafi, due to the Hanafis not fulfilling the conditions of Wudu as affirmed by the Shafi��is. Another Shafi��i, al-Subki, claims that Allah told him to adhere to the Madhab of al-Shafi��i in his dream.

Indeed, it was due to obliging every layman to adhere to a Madhab that once a Sunni Iran, was turned into a Shiite Iran, when the Iranian ruler, Kharabandah ordered the Iranians to adhere to the Shiite Madhab.

If this is the condition of the learned men amongst the jurists, then what is expected of the layman? Therefore, if the principle of Sadd al-Dhara��i is to be applied, then surely it is more worthy of being applied here, in order to prevent internal conflicts between Madhabs and for the promotion of unity.

f) A layman cannot be attributed to a Madhab, because a person��s attribution to the Madhab must be based on reasonable links between a person and the Madhab. However, in reality, it is quite common for the layman to not even know the founder of the Madhab he might be attributing himself to, and therefore, such attribution is deemed senseless. Adherence to a Madhab is for those who take up the path of education by gradually learning the books of a Madhab, knowing the evidences and the methodology of deducing rulings according to the principles of a Madhab. As for attributing an ignorant layman to a Madhab, then that is nothing but oppression on that Madhab; for in how many instances, a person who claims to be following certain Madhab, is clueless about the opinions of the Madhab with regards to the basics of ritual purification (Taharah) and prayer. Furthermore, many laymen are, in fact, following their culture, while believing they are following their Madhab. Indeed, many of those who may attribute themselves to a Madhab, might not even be Muslims, if they are those who are drowned in sins that amount to Kufr or Shirk! So from what angle or perspective, or from what justice should a layman be regarded an adherent to any Madhab?

Ibn al-Humam says in his Tahrir (as reported by al-Ma��sumi): ��Kmajority of the Muqallids say: I am a Hanafi, or a Shafi��i, while having no knowledge about the path of his Imam, hence, he does not become so by merely a claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or an author; he does not become as such, by merely a claim, whilst he is far distant from the life of his Imam. Therefore, how can such attribution be valid, by merely a claim, and futile speech without any meaning?!��

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ��A layman cannot have a Madhab even if he adheres to one, for the layman has no Madhab. This is because the Madhab is only for the one who has some insight and a way of deducing rulings, who also has insight into Madhabs befitting his level, or the one who studies a book in the applied Fiqh of that Madhab, and knows the verdicts of his Imam and his sayings. As for the one who has not accomplished any of that, yet says: I am a Shafi��i or a Hanbali, or other than that, then he does not become that merely by his claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or a grammarian, or an author, he does not become one merely by a claim.

What makes it clearer is that the one, who says he is Shafi��i or a Maliki, or a Hanafi, actually claims that he is the follower of that Imam, adhering to his way. This can only be true for him if he were to tread his path in knowledge, understanding and deduction. As for one who is ignorant and distant from the life of the Imam, his knowledge and his path, how can his attribution to him be correct, with merely a claim, and futile speech in every sense?��

Misconceptions About Ibn Rajab��s Position:
There are some from the contemporaries who claim that Ibn Rajab in his book ��al-Radd ��ala Man Ittaba��a Ghair Madhahib al-Arba��ah�� (Rebuttal of those who follow other than the four Madhabs), obliges the layman to adhere to a Madhab. However, the book does not even deal with the aforementioned issue, for in no place does Ibn Rajab speak about obliging the layman to stick to a Madhab; rather, his book is a general advice to some of his contemporaries amongst the jurists who, according to him, did not reach any level of Ijtihad, while they also freed themselves from Taqleed, and began to issue verdicts that fall outside of the four Madhabs. This also corresponds to what Ibn Taymiyah said that the truth generally does not fall outside the four Madhabs, while in very few issues, it may fall outside of the four Madhabs according to the correct opinion.

Nor is it correct to understand from the book that Ibn Rajab condemns anyone who opposes the Imam of his Madhab, or claims Ijtihad. This is because Ibn Rajab says in the same book (page 25-26), that in spite of the four Imams and their Madhabs, people have appeared, claiming Ijtihad and do not make Taqleed of any of the Imams; and amongst them are those who are truly Mujtahids and those that are not. What further supports this is that we find Ibn Rajab describing Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah as a ��Mujtahid�� in his Dha��il Tabaqat. In fact, even Ibn Rajab himself did not adhere to his Madhab in every issue, for he was also known for his verdict on three Talaqs only occurring as one (as mentioned in al-Jawhar by ibn al-Mabrid), an opinion which falls outside of the four Madhabs, which he later left for the majority opinion.

(See Principles 314-317, al-Wadih 162, Majmu��ah 20/161, Mawsu��at Ahl al-Sunnah 2/988-992, I��lam 6/203-205, al-Mustadrak 2/250, 251, Tasmiyat al-Muftin 72)