[QysnZWB4]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post795180

Interestingly, it appears the early ruling of the Shafi'i madhab, or at least that of the major early Mujtahids of the Shafi'i madhab, including giants such as al-Qaffal, is that it is necessary for the non-Mujtahid to adhere to one madhab, based on the fear that non-specific Taqleed would lead to seeking of concessions. Nearly a millenium later, when the influence of personal desires is immeasurably more rampant amongst both the scholars and the laity, such a regulatory measure is regarded as extreme:

It seems quite significant that Imam Nawawi, despite his own inclination, clearly concedes to the fact that the Ashaab (the major early Mujtahideen scholars of the Madhab) ruled on the necessity of adhering to one Madhab, as a regulatory measure to prevent the people from collecting concessions:

"The second [opinion] and Abu al-Hasan Ilkiya was assured of it is it is necessary for him [i.e. the layperson to adhere to a specific madhhab] - and this applies to all who have not reached the level of ijtihad from the jurists and the scholars of the remaining sciences - so that one does not collect the concessions of the madhhabs; as distinguished from the first period, when the madhhabs were not codified, so [it was not possible] to collect their concessions. Based on this, it is necessary for him to select a madhhab he will do taqlid of in everything. He cannot adopt a madhhab based on whim, nor based on what he found his father upon [i.e. but must investigate which madhhab he feels is the most superior]. This is the viewpoint of the Ashaab."

And:

“Its reason is that if it were permissible to adhere to any madhhab one wished, it would lead to collecting the concessions of the madhhabs, in accordance with one’s desires, and opting between legalisation and illegalisation, obligation and permission, and this will lead to relinquishing the noose of moral responsibility (taklif); as distinguished from the early period, because [at that time] there were no refined madhhabs that encompassed the rulings of [all] outcomes. Based on this, it is necessary for him to make effort in opting for one madhhab he will adhere to specifically.” (al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:55)

He also states that the most correct opinion according to al-Qaffal is that a layperson does have a madhhab and he cannot go against it. (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 1:93)

In his fatawa, Haythami re-affirms the position of the Ashaab, before going on to mention his own and Imam Nawawi's preference:

"He [Haythami] was asked: Is it obligatory after the codification of madhhabs to stick to one of them? And can one transfer from what he stuck to? He replied: That which is transmitted in Ziyadat al-Rawdah [by al-Nawawi] from the Ashab [the major early mujtahideen scholars of the madhhab] is the obligation of that."

Since, according to the hierarchy of his own books, Haythami's Tuhfat al-Muhtaj is more authoritative and takes precedence over his fatawa, perhaps the following unambiguous statement should be taken to be his final stance on this issue:

"And the claim that a layperson has no madhhab is rejected. Rather, taqlid of a recognised madhhab is necessary for him. And that [i.e. a layperson not having a madhhab] was only before the codification and establishment of the madhhabs." (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj)

The opinion of the Ashaab (the major early mujtahideen of the madhab), seems to be re-affirmed as the most correct ruling (asahh) by later scholars such as Taj al-Din al-Subki, in his Jam' al-Jawami', an important Shafi'i Usul work.

As far as I understand, the obligation of confining oneself to the rulings of the four Madhabs, of adhering to the mu'tamad/mashoor/rajih rulings of the Madhab, and of restricting oneself to just one madhab, are all regulatory (intizami) measures to ensure that the non-Mujtahid does not cause anarchy in their Deen. The anarchy is an undeniable reality if one observes the fact that those who do not abide by such restrictions, the scholars and laypeople alike, seem to adopt the most lenient positions from all the Madhabs, even resorting to the weak anomalous rulings that exist in our tradition.

I have met an increasing number of Hanafi scholars who honestly believe that both the Shafi'i opinion on the beard and the Hanbali opinion on masah over thin socks, are the strongest positions. Furthermore, it is only human nature for such scholars to believe that the Nafs played no part in their self-perceived objective judgement. In any case, regardless of the accuracy of their judgement, some would say that they are perfectly entitled to adopt the easiest opinion amongst the Madhabs. However, the soundness of their judgement is irrelevant, when it comes to the laypeople who regard the practice of such scholars as the standard to aspire towards. Knowingly or unknowingly, these scholars legitimise for countless laypeople, their practise of madhab-hopping, or of adopting marjooh and anomalous opinions.

There is an unfathomable difference between the person who accepts that he is committing a sin, and the one who is unrepentant and believes, with a clear conscious, that he is merely following a valid methodology. Since, we have been desensitized to such widespread practices of unregulated madhab-hopping, and adoption of marjooh opinions, a hypothetical example might allow a better appreciation of the kind of anarchy that is occurring.

Over ninety percent of the Ummah fail to observe their Fajr salaat on time, undeniably due to weaknesses of the Nafs. Virtually all of them, at least subconsciously, accept that they are sinful and that they should rectify themselves. However, in the absence of a regulatory measure such as Taqleed Shaksi, and in the hypothetical scenario where a Mujtahid of one of the four Madhabs ruled that it is acceptable to pray Fajr after waking up, it is very easy to imagine that the vast majority of these people would deem it unnecessary to rectify oneself, and that greater priorities exist in life. Many would be genuinely convinced that their Nafs had no part to play in their judgement that the Mujtahid who issued such a ruling is the most knowledgable in this particular issue. Many would also believe that they are entitled to follow the easiest opinion in this matter.

The correctness of the ruling of the Deobandi Akabir on this issue becomes apparent when you observe that even amongst the laymen who follow their teachings, you will be hard-pressed to find someone who shaves his beard, does masah over thin socks, listens to music, practises doubtful forms of tawassul/istagathah, discards the ijma' practise of taraweeh, treats three talaqs as one, builds over graves, or adopts any other questionable practice prevalent amongst scholars today, whilst unrepentantly believing that he is merely following a valid methodology. The Deobandi ulama do accept that the expert scholar is permitted to adopt the ruling of another Madhab, providing certain conditions are met, such as avoiding any possibility of causing confusion amongst the laymen. However, revealing such caveats to those whom it is not relevant to, would only serve to defeat the purpose of the standard ruling they issue on this matter.

The fact that the Ashaab of the Shafi'i madhab and other early fuqaha felt that there was a need for Taqleed Shaksi nearly a millenium ago, despite the relative piety of their era, further vindicates and emphasizes on the correctness of the ruling of the Deobandi Akabir in these worst of times, close to the hour, when desires are more rampant than ever before.