There are many muslims nowadays that say following a madhab is not neccessary; to the contrary my dear fellow muslims, it is obligatory according to the consensus!
Here is a very clearly explained Fatwa showing just that; enjoy!:
In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
Amongst the most important replies that I have given, is my reply concerning the one who has deviated to the point where he censures the importance of studying the branches [furu'] of jurisprudence, and we seek refuge in Allah from the deviation of such a wandering deviant. Would that he simply had claimed independent reasoning (ijtihad) for himself only, and Allah is his reckoner, but abandoned the call of Muslims to leave that which is incumbent upon them. In our reply to such a one, we make mention what the scholars of the methodological bases of Islamic jurisprudence (usuli’un) and the Imams of jurisprudence themselves have said about such a matter. As for my labelling him a deviant, it is only because he has desired to impose upon common people the precious rank of absolute independent reasoning [ijtihad], about which Muhammad an-Nabigha said,
And ijtihad in the land of the Moroccans, The western phoenix has taken to flight with it.
I say in reply, that the following of qualified scholarship (taqlid) is an obligation on anyone other than an absolute mujtahid. I shall make mention of all his prerequisites if Allah wills. [Sidi Abdullah Ould Hajj Ibrahim] has said in his Maraqi as-Sa’ud:
“[taqlid] is necessary for other than the one who has achieved the rank of absolute ijtihad. Even if he is a limited [mujtahid] who is unable [to perform absolute ijtihad].”
Commenting on this line, [Sidi Abdullah] said in Nashru al-bunud,
“It means that taqlid is an obligation on anyone who is not an absolute mujtahid, even if he has achieved the limited rank of ijtihad muqayyad . . . [until he says], ‘And ask the people of the reminder, if you yourselves do not know.’”
By using the line of Muhammad an-Nabigha above, I am in no way claiming that all ijtihad has been severed in every land; how [could I say such a thing] when [Sidi Abdullah] says in Maraqi as-sa’ud:
“The earth will never be void of a mujtahid scholar until its very foundations shake.”
He also said,
“[Regarding] the necessity of binding to a specific madhhab, the [scholars] have mentioned its obligation upon anyone falling short [of the conditions of ijtihad].”
He says in Nashru al-bunud,
“It means that it is incumbent for whoever falls short of achieving the rank of absolute ijtihad to follow a particular madhhab.”
Again, in Maraqi as-Sa’ud, Sidi Abdullah says,
“The consensus today is on the four, and all have prohibited following [any] others.”
He says in Nashru al-bunud,
“This means that the consensus of the scholars today is on the four schools of thought, and I mean by the schools of Malik, Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i and Ahmad. Indeed, all of the scholars have prohibited following any other school of an independent and absolute mujtahid since the eighth century when the school of Dawud adh-Dhahiri died out and until the 12th Century and all subsequent ones.”
I do not think these madhzhab issues on the aspect of fiqh are such a big deal as to label the failure of non-observance as deviant of the fundamental commands in the Al-Quran. Those fatwa's of the great 4 imams were just optional details based upon their individual observation within the geographical and social and cultural environment of the days. They were, I believe, supposed to be their personal opinions on how things are to be done and therefore as community/people- friendly as possible. The existence of the 4 madzhabs must be considered a blessings. I agree studying it would widen up our individual option and allow us, as we grow spiritually, to find out the right mix that is compatible with our capacity to comply. Stringent or non-stringent is not an issue. Variability is an issue. And how one copes with the variables are down to earth personal. I grew up in a Shafi'ee environment and there are certain aspects of it I experience at higher degree of difficulty (to practice). In other (madzhab) environments the rulings may not be so. There shouldn't be any barrier for me to adopt those rulings if I can find comforts in following it. Compared to the older geneation of Muslims, like me, the new ones, by right, should be in a better position to learn all these variation because materails for them are so easily available and there are many specialists around in many parts of the world. For me, I am fully settled with what I have, right now. I just made a point to observe how those in the front row (of me), during a Friday (Salat) Jumaat, orientate their left and right foot. It puzzles me. What kind of ustadz we are getting these days? Scholars can go on with their ijtihad, whatever. But if they cannot fix the solat and its basic common technique, then the whole Islamic Teaching curriculum needs a major overhaul.
Wow visio; how your responses have changed! ; from esoteric to exoteric!; good going!
The thing is vis, that there is proof in the Quran and hadith that consensus' can never be wrong, thus we can bet our bottom dollar [but lets not as betting is haram! ] that that consensus is correct!
the consensus also says it is an obligation on all Muslims falling short of the requirements of an absolute mujtahid, thus this is basically 99.99999999% Muslims apart from the very few Mujtahid Scholars on earth
(16) Imam Hakim (1/116) has related a Sahih Hadith from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) in the following words: "My Ummah shall not agree upon error."
(17) Imam al-Tirmidhi (4/2167) reported on the authority of Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), who said: "Verily my Ummah would not agree (or he said the Ummah of Muhammad) would not agree upon error and Allah's hand is over the group and whoever dissents from them departs to Hell." (see also Mishkat, 1/173)
Wow visio; how your responses have changed! ; from esoteric to exoteric!; good going!
Hi Abdullah! It's kind of late at night, where I am. So I'll just respond to just this part of your post, first. I used to question some fiqh scholars a lot many of these exoteric things that we as Muslims do as our "amal". And I used to come across some Muslims who talk a lot about thing esoterics. I found some gaps in their response as to the "why" question. I admit that I am not fond of reading a librariful of kitabs. Just a couple of Ibn Araby (in English) and Al-GhazaliIhya (in my language)which I never completed and seldom read. Eversince my spiritual mentor passed away, the only company I have left is the Al-Quran. From certain input of my late spiritual mentor - which were mainly esoteric, I went DIY in my quest to understand the "whys" that I mentioned above. There is a synergy between tawheed (esoteric) and fiqh (exoteric) and the flow between one and the other and vice versa is quite awesome. The tawheed answers the question of "Who am I and who was I". And in that process of self realisation, we'll find that we are mid-way in a long, long journey to one destination, with a baggage in our hands. The question that would automatically follow is what shall I do here and right now to get to that destination. The answer is the fiqh or sharia aspects. Prophet Muhammadsaw never stopped his solat even after he realised who he was and went on the Mi'raj (ascension). Even after he had made his Ascension, yet he still performed the Hajj (once and for all). If these ibadah was good for the Prophet, then it must be good for all of us. InshaAllah. I am just sharing the fruit of my DIY. The esoteric parts may appear quite complex (especially to non-technical persons) and can be quite revolting to many Muslims (scholars or non-scholars alike). Everyday I ask ALLAHswt to correct me if I have written anything wrong in the scheme I outlined. Alhamdhullillah, so far there is no sign in that direction. On the other hand new things coming up to make it even more clearer and affirmation. There are more oppotunities to clear up the air, in the sharia' aspect. And my thought are now focussed in that direction. That will push me to look closer at what the hadiths in our inventory are really saying.
Commenting on this line, [Sidi Abdullah] said in Nashru al-bunud,
“It means that taqlid is an obligation on anyone who is not an absolute mujtahid, even if he has achieved the limited rank of ijtihad muqayyad . . . [until he says], ‘And ask the people of the reminder, if you yourselves do not know.’”
Assalamualaikum wrhmtllh, Abdullah.
I must admit that going thru the commentary part of your post forced my mind into legal linguistic gymnastic. I have not fully grasped the gist of it yet. But I do find a concern here which may cast a doubt on the credibility of the whole argument. I am requoting, above, what was said by one Sidi Abdullah in, what I guess, his kitab/treatise. The statement he used "And ask the people of the reminder, if you yourselves do not know" was derived directly from the Al-Quran Al-Anbiya' (The Prophets) 21 : 7 which reads : And We sent not before you (O Muhammadsaw) but men to whom we revealed. So ask the people of the reminder if you do not know. If one reads the verses before it and the verses after it the context of this verse has nothing to do with anything fiqh or jurisprudence. It was 100% about faith/tawheed and general belief in Prophets and Revelation revealed to them. I do not know for what reason or motive the said person quoted this verse in his commentary. The trick terms in that verse is the English words "people of reminder". Who were these people of reminder? I do not know who Sidi Abdullah was referring to. There are interpretation/translation of the original Arabic term - "ahlaz-zikri" suggesting people of the earlier books (Taurat, Injil). If this what it was, was Sidi Abdullah saying if we do not know, in the context of Quranic/Islamic jurisprudence, ask those Jews and Christians? There are two issues here. First, using the Al-Quranic verse out of context. Second, what exactly is Sidi Abdullah's and his peers of the day interpretation of the Al-Quranic "ahlaz-zikri"? My understanding of the term is that they are people beyond book-scholarship, more like direct experiencers such as accomplished sufis/persons of tassawuf. Please don't jump to the conclusion that Sidi Abdullah was wrong in his interpretation of "ahlaz-zikri". In the Quranic verse quoted above the adressee was Muhammadsaw. Who was the people of the reminder (ahlaz-zikri) that ALLAHswt asked Muhammadsaw to refer to, for what he didn't know (the towns that were destroyed for non-belief of revelation sent down to earlier prophets)?
Commenting on this line, [Sidi Abdullah] said in Nashru al-bunud,
“It means that taqlid is an obligation on anyone who is not an absolute mujtahid, even if he has achieved the limited rank of ijtihad muqayyad . . . [until he says], ‘And ask the people of the reminder, if you yourselves do not know.’”
After giving it a long thought, the (Arabic) ahliz-zikri used in the Quranic verse quoted, refered to those people we know to-day as historians. In the context of the whole quranic surah, it pointed to those who (during the time of the Prophet Muhammadsaw) remembered the history of previous scriptures - Taurat, Injil ....... The impression I get from Sidi Abdullah statements quoted here, he used the Al-Quranic term ahliz-zikri for a different meaning. What he indicated was ahliz-zikri were those pious and religious or highly spiritual Muslims who for the most part of their daily life remain in constant zikr (remembrance) of ALLAH. They may include those sufis. It is important to know this because before we can accept any fatwa by the Imams of the four madzhabs we need to assess the personality standing and criteria used in their aceptance. There was every possibility that any of those gentlemen could have imported some idea from the Hebrews of the day who were, in their own right, were the people of the reminder (ahliz-zikri) in their communities.
] that that consensus is correct!