Fully Adhering to a Particular Juristic School

I have been struggling for sometime with the question of Madhab and if to follow a specific one or not. I have heard from some local imams that once I choose a Madhab (Hanafi, Malki, Shafi, etc) I should follow all the teachings of that Madhab yet there are other imams who have suggested that there is no harm in not worrying about the Madhab and doing whatever seems to work better with the situation (For example, while I'm traveling, it is better to pray all the prayers at their prescribed times but if it is difficult to do so, they can be combined.) Can you please give some explanation to this problem?

Khuda Hafiz

Mohsin

Reply

I would request you to kindly have a look at my previous response to a similar question.

To understand my answer to your question, it is important to first understand the real significance and position of the different Muslim Madhabs [juristic schools]. These Muslim Madhabs are actually the compilations of the understanding of a particular Muslim scholar, and his followers, of the Shari`ah, i.e. the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah and of derivations of that scholar, and his followers, based on that particular understanding of the Shari`ah.

If my explanation of the significance and position of the different Madhabs is fully appreciated, then it should logically follow that there is nothing sacrosanct about these Madhabs. They are actually a compilation of the understanding of humans like ourselves of the Qur’an and the Sunnah – humans who were not infallible and who never claimed to be so, humans whose opinions were a mixture of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

In view of this fact regarding the position and significance of the Muslim Madhabs, it should be quite clear that there is no logical basis for emphasizing complete adherence to a particular Madhab. It is quite possible that a person may feel that the opinion of imam Abu Hanifa (may God have mercy on him) is more in consonance with the Qur’an and the Sunnah in a particular case while in another case, the opinion of imam Maalik (may God have mercy on him) is closer to the directives of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. In such a situation, why should a person be forced to follow any one of the two imams in both the cases?

It must be remembered that as Muslims, our allegiance is to the directives of God and his messenger, not to any particular understanding of those directives. Therefore, there is absolutely basis to force a person to fully adhere to the opinions of any particular Madhab. On the other hand, because every person in the world does not have the time or the ability to conduct a thorough research of every school or to directly understand the directives of the Qur’an and the Sunnah on his own, there is no harm in his choosing for himself to follow a particular Madhab.

Thus, in my opinion, it is quite understandable and even acceptable if a person, due to his lack of knowledge and opportunity to gain that knowledge decides on fully adhering to the opinions of any particular Muslim scholar. However, to propagate full adherence to a particular Madhab as a necessary requirement for a Muslim is absolutely without any basis.

I hope this helps. In case any aspect remains unclear, please feel free in writing back to me at your convenience.

May Allah grant us all true understanding of His guidance.

Regards