It is generally believed by Sunni Muslims that each one of the four schools (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali)--all being possible interpretations of the Shari`a--are correct and none of them can be held as something in contradiction with the Shari’a . But at the same time, we can see that the followers of the Hanafi school do not depart from the Hanafi view and do not adopt the Shafi'i or Maliki view in juristic matters. Rather, they deem it impermissible to follow the view of another jurist in any particular issue. How can this approach be reconciled with the belief that all the four schools are considered correct? It would seem that if they are all correct then there should be no harm in the Hanafis following Shaft'i, Maliki, or Hanbali views in some matters.

Answer of Mufti Taqi 'Uthmani

It is true that all the four schools are on the truth, and following any one of them is permissible in order to follow the Shari'a. However, a non-professional who lacks the ability to compare between the argu­ments of each school cannot pick and mix between different views to satisfy his personal desires. The reason for this approach is twofold.

Allah (swt) has empathically ordered in a number of verses of the Holy Qur'an to follow the guidance of the Shari’a, and has made it strictly prohibited for one to follow one's desires vis-a-vis the rules of the Shari'a. The Muslim jurists, when interpreting the sources of the shari’a, attempt never to satisfy their personal desires. They attempt to make their best effort to discover the spirit of Shari'a, and they base their opinions on the force of evidence and not merely on the search for convenience. They do not choose an interpretation on the basis of its suitability to their personal fancies; they choose it only on the basis of the strength of the evidence before them.

For example, Imam Abu Hanifa is of the opinion that bleeding from any part of the body breaks the wudu', while Imam Shafi'i believes that bleeding does not break the wudu’. On the other hand, Imam Shafi'i says that if a man touches a woman, his wudu' stands broken and he is obligated to make fresh wudu' before offering prayer, while Imam Abu Hanifa insists that merely touching a woman does not break the wudu’.

How can the practice of “pick-and-mix" be allowed? A layman may well choose the Hanafi opinion in the matter of touching a woman and the Shafi'i view in the matter of bleeding. Consequently, he will deem his wudu' unbroken even when experiencing both situations together (i.e. he has bled and happened to touch a women) even though his wudu' stands broken now according to both Hanafi and Shafi'i opinions.

Similarly, according to the Shafi'i view, a traveller can combine the two prayers of Zuhr and 'Asr. However, at the same time, if a traveller makes up his mind to stay in a town for four days, he is no longer regarded as a traveller in the Shafi'i view. Hence, he cannot avail himeself of the concession of shortening the prayers [qasr] nor of combining two prayers. On the other hand, the period of travel, according to the Hanafi view, is fourteen days, and a person can continue to shorten his prayers as long as he does not resolve to stay in a town for fourteen days or more.

A traveller who has entered a city to stay there for five days, can­not combine two prayers, according to both Imam Shafi'i and Imam Abu Hanifa. This is because, by staying for five days, he cannot use the two concessions ofqasr and of combining two prayers according to Imam Shafi'i, and because combining two prayers is not allowed according to Imam Abu Hanifa. Nevertheless, the approach of "pick and mix" still leads some people to adopt the Shafi'i view in the matter of combining prayers and the Hanafi view in the matter of the period of journey.

It is evident from these examples that the selection of different views in different cases is not based on the force of arguments leading to them, but on the facility provided by each. Obviously this practice is tantamount to following one's desires, which is totally prohibited by the Holy Qur'an. If such an attitude is permitted, it will render the Shari'a a play thing in the hands of the ignorant, and no rule of Shari'a will remain immune to distortion. This is why the practice of "pick-and-mix" has been condemned by all the renowned scholars of Shari'a. Imam Ibn Taymiya, the famous hadith scholar and jurist, says in his Fatawa:

Some people follow at one time an Imam who holds marriage invalid, and at another time they follow an Imam who holds it valid, they do so only to serve their individual purpose and satisfy their desires. Such a practice is impermissible according to the consensus of all the Imams (Fatawa Ibn Taymiya 2: 285-286).

This was the basic cause for the policy adopted by the later jurists, who made it necessary for the common people to adopt a particular school in its totality. If one prefers the madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifa, then should adopt it in all matters and with all its details. However, if one prefers another madhhab one should adopt that one in full. One should not pick and mix between the different views of the schools for one's own benefit.

The benefit of the validity of the madhbabs, according to the jurists, is that a person can elect to follow any one of them. But once a person has adopted a particular madhhab, then he should not follow any, other madhhab in any matter, whether it be to seek convenience or satisfy his personal choices, both of which are based on his desires and not on the force of argument. Thus, the policy of “allegiance to particular school" was a preventive measure adopted by the jurists to preclude anarchy in the matter of the Shari'a.

However, this policy is meant for those who cannot carry out ijtihad themselves or cannot evaluate the arguments advanced by all the madhhabs in support of their views. For such people, the best approach is to follow one particular school as a credible interpretation of the Shari'a.

Nevertheless, those equipped with the necessary qualifications of ijtihad need not follow a particular school [madhhab]. They can derive the rules of Shari'a directly from the original sources. Similarly, those who are not fully qualified for the exercise of deriving rulings [ijithad], but are so well-versed in the Islamic disciplines that they can evaluate the different juristic views on purely academic grounds (i.e. without being motivated by their personal desires), are not forbidden from preferring one school over the other in a particular matter. There are many Hanafi jurists who, despite their allegiance to Imam Abu Hanifa, have adopted the view of some other jurist in some juristic issues. Nevertheless, they are considered Hanafis.

This partial departure from the view of Imam Abu Hanifa could be based on either of the following grounds: sometimes jurists, after an honest and comprehensive study of the relevant material, come to the conclusion that the view of another Imam is stronger. Jurists may also find that the view of Imam Abu Hanifa, although based on analogy, does not conform to an authentic hadith, which is usu­ally due to its not having been conveyed to the Imam; otherwise he most probably would have adopted a view in conformance with that hadith also.

Another case in which jurists have departed from the view of their Imam is when they have felt it a necessity for the collective good of the Umma. These jurists would follow another Imam not in pursuance of their personal desires, but to meet the collective needs of the Umma and in view of the changed circumstances prevailing in their time.

These examples are sufficient to show that the followers of a par­ticular school do not take their school as a substitute for the Shari'a or as its sole version to the exclusion of every other madhhab. Followers of a madhhab do not give any madhhab a higher place than it actually deserves within the framework of Sbari'a.

Before parting with this question, I would like to clarify another point which is extremely important in this context. Some people who have no systematic knowledge of Islamic disciplines often become deluded by their superficial knowledge based on self-study (in many cases, it being only through the translation of the Holy Qur'an and hadiths). Following this kind of cursory study, they assume them­selves to be masters of Islamic learning and begin criticizing the former Muslim jurists, this attitude is based on ignorance and has no justification.

The extraction of juridical rules from the Holy Qur'an and Sunna is a very meticulous process that cannot be carried out on the basis of sketchy study. While studying a particular juristic subject, one has to collect all the relevant material from the Qur'an and hadiths found in the various chapters and books and undertake a combined study of the scattered material. One must examine the veracity of the relevant hadiths in light of the well-established principles of the science of hadith [usul-hadith]. One must study the historical background of the relevant verses and traditions. In short, one has to first resolve a number of complicated issues involved. This whole exercise requires very intensive and extensive knowledge which is seldom found in the contemporary scholars who have specialized themselves in the subject, let alone the common people who have no direct access to the original sources of Shari'a.

The conclusion of the above discussion is that since all the four schools are based on solid grounds, it is permissible for a competent scholar to adopt another school's juristic view, if he has the required knowledge and ability to understand the merits of each madhhab on the basis of adequate academic research, without being indulged in pursuing his personal desires. The people who do not fulfil these conditions should not dare to do so, because it could lead to anarchy in the matter of Shari'a.

Fiqh al-Imam - Key Proofs In Hanafi Fiqh (Mufti Abdur-Rahman Ibn Yusuf)