According to the religion reformer, there is no qiyâs in Islam; all Muslims are mujtahids; by observing the documentary evidences of discordant matters, they will find out the correct way; in other words, they will employ qiyâs! His two assertions contradict each other. If he had been able to understand the meanings of ijtihâd and qiyâs in the books of usûl al-fiqh, he would not have fallen into this contradiction. The Egyptian religion reformer is rather strong in Arabic, his mother tongue, and he is educated to some extent. Certainly, he can easily read the books of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna and can understand something within his own limits. But ’ilm al-usûl al-fiqh is like a large ocean. Being specialized in this branch of knowledge requires having studied the eighty preliminary branches thoroughly. A person who does not know these eighty branches, and who even denies them, is ignorant in this branch, even if he were very powerful in Arabic. This is the age of specialization. Only in the field of medicine, or in physics or chemistry, many new branches of specialization are being born. A doctor specialized in internal diseases sometimes has to refer his patient to a doctor specialized in neurology, who may have to send his patient to a psychology doctor, who may have to hand over a patient of his to a psychiatrist. The specialization branches of physiotherapy are even greater. While there are these various branches of specialization in science, how could it ever be right to slight, or to go so far as to deny, the branches of specialization and their experts in religious knowledge which is higher and more extensive? This should never be admissible, especially on the part of a person who speaks in the name of knowledge. It is easily understandable that the religion reformer is very ignorant in ’ilm al-usûl al-fiqh. It can be of no value at all if an ignoramus speaks ill of an ’âlim, an expert. An ’âlim, not an ignoramus, can recognize an ’âlim. The words of an ignoramus, whether favourable or unfavourable, will not be esteemed. An ignoramus who writes the words of scholars without understanding them and who thus fills many pages can deceive only those who are ignorant like him. While writing these lines, we do not ever claim to be authorized in this exalted branch of knowledge. We see that we are, let alone being scholars, a mere nothing in comparison with the profound knowledge of the great scholars. We deem it impertinence on our part to speak or write from ourselves on this branch of knowledge. But what else could we do, while the ignorant and the enemies of Islam have come forth and have been moving about freely? They have been competing with one another in attacking Islam. Not a hero gifted with perfection to answer them has been seen. Islam has been going away, collapsing. Lots of infinite thanks be to our Allâhu ta’âlâ that we have been honoured with seeing a profound scholar of Islam, an expert of this branch of knowledge, who had seen the situation long before and had been worrying about it ever since, but had been deprived of saying and writing about it. For this very great endowment of His, may thanks be to our Allâhu ta’âlâ again! Even if every hair on our bodies began to speak, we could not fulfil one-millionth of the gratitude due to this blessing of our Allâhu ta’âlâ. Had we not heard a few facts from the treasure of hikma and ma’rifa of that great expert in Islam, who was Hadrat Sayyid ’Abdulhakîm-i Arwâsî, we, let alone writing books on this sublime, very advanced and very dangerously subtle subject, could not even dare to open our mouths. But we have deemed it a duty, even a debt for ourselves to convey the leaks of knowledge from that source to our brothers-in-Islam. In order to escape the threat in the hadîth ash-sherîf, “When fitna arises and bid’as are spread, he who knows the truth should say it! If he does not, may he be accursed by Allâhu ta’âlâ, by angels and by all people,” we have been striving to tell our brothers-in-Islam what we heard and learned. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless us with writing the truth! May He bless it with influencing those who read it! May He forgive us the mistakes which we may make! May He protect the Ummat al-Muhammadiyya against the fitnas peculiar to the last days of the world!
None of the scholars following a madhhab has ever disagreed with his imâm al-madhhab’s usûl, even if he had reached the grade of ijtihâd. The scholars who promulgated the teachings of a madhhab were of various grades. Most of them were arbâb at-tarjîh who studied the documentary evidences of tradition coming from the imâm of the madhhab closely and then preferred one of them. A tradition which was not preferred can not be said to have been refused. Such traditions are acted upon when there is difficulty. The preference of one of the traditions coming from the imâm does not mean to disagree with the imâm. Hadrat al-Awzâ’î, al-Baghawî and al-Ghazâlî, too, were mutlaq mujtahids like al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î. In many matters their ijtihâds were in agreement with those of al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î. The ignorant think that they were in the Shâfi’î madhhab and that they disagreed with the imâm al-madhhab. As for az-Zamakhsharî, let alone being a Hanafî, he was not even a Sunnî. He belonged to the Mu’tazila, one of the seventy-two heretical groups. Because the ’ibâdât of the Mu’tazila resembled those of the Hanafî madhhab, the ignorant think that they were Hanafîs.
Saying that the religion was altered after the Four Caliphs will astonish not only a man of religious post but also anybody who has read books; it is something which anybody, religious or irreligious, will refuse. Both the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth ash-sherîf state that religious knowledge will continue without being altered until Doomsday. A community on the right path will be continuing until Domsday. In every hundred years, an ’âlim to strengthen the religion will be created. It is true that the seventy-two heretical groups appeared and those with heretical beliefs have been on the increase and there are many ignoramuses and sinners also among Ahl as-Sunna, but still there are also those who are on the right path. The right path is obvious; the religion has been keeping its same purity as it had in the first century of Islam.
The scholars of the four madhhabs have unanimously said that the hadîth book Mishkât al-masâbîh is a reliable, genuine one. The hadîth ash-sherîf quoted in the chapter Kitâb al-fitan of this book on the authority of Sawbân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) says, “There will come a time when a part of my umma will join polytheists. Like them, they will worship idols. There will appear liars. They will think of themselves asprophets. But, I am the last Prophet. There will come no other prophet after me. Among my umma, there will always be those who are on the correct path. Their opponents will not be able to do any harm to them until Allâhu ta’âlâ’s order comes.” This hadîth sherîf shows that religion reformers or zindîqs will never be able to defile this blessed religion until the Last Day. Though corrupt, destructive and factious ones among Islamic books teem in the libraries all over the world and they have been increasing day by day, there are also the right ones among them. They will never be annihilated, and nobody will be able to eradicate them. They are under Allâhu ta’âlâ’s protection and preservation. How lucky for those who will attain to happiness by searching for, finding and reading these books! Couplet:
“I give you the key to the
treasure you want!
You may attain to it, though we have not!”
36 - The religion reformer says,
“People are of two categories: learned people and ordinary people. The former ones will find out the documentary evidences and follow them. The latter ones will follow mujtahids and faqîhs provided that they will not follow a certain one. Ordinary people do not have a certain madhhab. This is the meaning of the saying, ‘Their madhhab is the madhhab of the muftî.’ Early scholars, again, say that it is not necessary to attach oneself to a certain muftî. One will understand the matter by asking anyone he wishes. Ordinary people are also permitted to act upon hadîths. Imâms did not disagree with one another in this respect. It is written in al-Hidâya about the fast of a person who undergoes cupping that if a person eats something after going through a cupping operation because he supposes his fast has been broken, he will perform both the qadâ’ and the kaffâra, since this supposition of his is not based upon any religious document. If the muftî gives such a fatwâ, it will be a document for him. If he has followed a hadîth, the case will be the same and he will not do the kaffâra (al-Kâfî and al-Hâmidî). Rasûlullah’s words would not be inferior to a muftî’s. All the four imâms said, ‘Leave aside our words and take the hadîth.’ But some people say that he who wants to act upon the Book and the Sunna becomes a zindîq. Abû Hanîfa said, ‘It is not permissible for anyone who does not know my documentary evidences to issue fatwâ according to my ijtihâd.’ He meant that he did not employ ijtihâd so that people would turn away from the Book and the Sunna and follow his words, but his ijtihâds were intended to show people how to derive rules from the Book and the Sunna. To say, by following the words of the posterity, such as Ibn ’Âbidîn, that it is harâm to infer rules from the Book and the Sunna will mean to disagree with Abû Hanîfa. These imitators conveyed the saying, ‘A’mâl should be based upon fiqh, not upon hadîths,’ from other imitators. Though the book Zahiriyya writes that the saying was intended for ordinary people, it comes to mean that it is not permissible to act upon the Book and the Sunna while there is fiqh, and it is obvious that the saying is wrong. Those who say so are ignorant and stubborn. Al-Kaidânî said that the tenth of the harâm actions was to raise the finger while performing salât. ’Alî al-Qâri’ said that this statement was sinful and that if it could not be explained away, he [al-Kaidânî] would be considered as a disbeliever, for it was certain that Rasûlullah raised his finger.”
Yes people are of two categories. The first ones are the scholars of Islam who have reached the grade of ijtihâd. The second ones are those scholars who have not reached the grade of ijtihâd and ordinary people. In the statement that ordinary people will ask a muftî about what they want to know, ‘the muftî’ means ‘a muftî in their own madhhab’. Ibn ’Âbidîn wrote in the preface to Radd al-muhtâr on the authority of the book Hazânat ar-riwâyât: “Those scholars who were able to draw meanings from âyats and hadîths were ahl ad-dirâya. They were in the grade of ijtihâd. It was permissible for them to act upon a marjuh (not preferred) report or a da’îf of which the transmitters were not trusted in) narration coming from their own imâm al-madhhab, even though it might not agree with the madhhab they belonged to. When there was difficulty in doing something, they could issue a fatwâ upon it for ordinary Muslims, too.” As it is seen, it is always permissible for a mujtahid fi ’l-madhhab to follow an ijtihâd showing an easy way in his madhhab which is permissible for an ordinary Muslim only when there is difficulty.[29] Ibn ’Âbidîn writes again in the preface, “The ordinary Muslims do not have a madhhab and their madhhab is their muftî’s madhhab. The commentary on Tahrîr of Ibn Humâm writes in the explanation of this statement that following a madhahb is for a person who knows and understands what a madhhab is or who has understood the fatwâs of the imâms of a madhhab by reading a book of this madhhab, and that the claim of a person who is not so to be a Hanafî or a Shâfi’î does not show that he belongs to either madhhab. As it is understood from this, an ordinary person’s saying that he has changed his madhhab has no value; upon asking a muftî of another madhhab he will have changed his madhhab. Ibn Humâm writes in his book Fat’h al-qadîr, ‘A muftî has to be a mujtahid. A scholar who is not a mujtahid is called “nâqil” (transmitter), but not a “muftî.” Those muftîs who are not mujtahids are muqallids, too. These, as well as ordinary Muslims, cannot draw correct meanings from hadîths. They, therefore, have to adapt themselves to what mujtahids understood, that is, they have to follow them. The imâms did not disagree with one another in this respect.”
As for cupping when one is fasting, certainly it does not break a Hanafî’s fast. If he eats something thinking that his fast has been broken, qadâ’ and kaffâra will be compulsory. A person who is as ignorant as not to know that he has not broken his fast after cupping is an ordinary person. If a Hanbalî muftî says that it breaks his fast, or if he hears a hadîth stating that it does and cannot explain it away, the unbrokenness of his fast becomes uncertain and, when he eats afterwards, the kaffâra will not be compulsory, for the madhhab of an ordinary Muslim is the madhhab of the muftî whom he asks. This example is an ijtihâd of al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa. It shows that a Hanafî has to obey the ijtihâd of al-Imâm al-a’zam. The religion reformer, by giving this example, proves that he is not right. Ibn Humâm explains the phrase “depending on a religious proof” in al-Hidâya as “likening to one of the things that break a fast.” This explanation and the report that the muftî’s fatwâ is a documentary evidence also prove that the reformer is wrong. The reformer falls into the trap that he sets for Muslims. Each imâm al-madhhab’s statement, “Leave my word aside, follow the hadîth,” was intended for his disciples, who were mujtahids, too. A mujtahid had to follow his own ijtihâd.
No faqîh (scholar of fiqh) has ever said, “He who wants to act upon the Book and the Sunna will become a zindîq.” These words are invented by the reformer. The statement “He who wants to act upon what he understands from the Book and the Sunna will become a zindîq,” which was said by the ’ulamâ’ of Islam, is the truth of the matter, for, a person who has not reached the grade of ijtihâd cannot deduce correct meanings from the Book or the Sunna. Our Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) said that he who would draw wrong meanings would become a kâfir. Because of this great danger, even the a’immat al-madhâhib learned the meanings in the Book and the Sunna from as-Sahâbat al-kirâm and employed ijtihâd in accordance with these correct meanings. Dislike for these correct meanings and correct ijtihâds means dislike for Islam, which in turn means being a zindîq. Al-Imâm al-azâm’s saying, “It is not permissible for anyone who does not know my documentary evidences to issue fatwâ according to my ijtihâd,” shows that Ibn ’Âbidîn has adopted his statement from al-Imâm al-a’zam. It proves that Ibn ’Âbidîn’s book is dependable and very soud. The taqlîd of an imâm al-madhhab does not mean to turn away from the Book and the Sunna. It means to adapt oneself to the correct meaning deduced by the imâm al-madhhab and not to attempt to draw wrong meanings from the Book and the Sunna. The a’immat al-madhâhib established methods and principles showing how to deduce meanings from the Book and the Sunna and each of them taught them to the mujtahids in his own madhhab. Muqallids, especially the ordinary people among muqallids, like the reformer, are very far from knowing or understanding these methods and principles and from performing ijtihâd. Ibn ’Âbidîn (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) never said that it was harâm for mujtahids to infer rules from the Book and the Sunna, but he said that, for the ignoramuses like the reformer who have not reached the grade of ijtihâd, it was harâm to infer rules. Our Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) declared,“He who infers rules from the Qur’ân al-kerîm through his own opinion becomes a kâfir.” Al-Imâm al’a’zam Abû Hanîfa, too, said that it was not permissible for the ignorant who are not in the grade of ijtihâd to issue fatwâs. The religion reformer, too, writes this fact as quoted above. Then, Hadrat Ibn ’Âbidîn is absolutely right. Hadrat Sayyid ’Abdulhakîm-i Arwâsî, al-Walî al-kâmil wa ’l-mukammil, the profound ’âlim cognizant of the four madhhabs down to their subtle particulars, said, “Of the books of fiqh in the Hanafî madhhab, Radd al-muhtâr [by Ibn ’Âbidîn] is the most useful and valuable one. Its every word is a proof; its every decision is a document.” What else can a person who speaks ill of and slights such a basic book of Islam be, if he is not a zindîq? Ibn ’Âbidîn was a great ’âlim of fiqh in the Hanafî madhhab. He took his every word, his every decision from the mujtahids who had taken them from al-Imâm al-a’zam, and, this great imâm from the Book and the Sunna. As it is seen, any Muslim who follows the rules conveyed by Ibn ’Âbidîn, in fact, follows the Book and the Sunna. But he who does not want to follow Ibn ’Âbidîn follows not the Book or the Sunna, but his own fancies, the desires of his nafs. The Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth ash-sherîf say that a person who does so will go to Hell. Let us say again that the statement, “It is not permissible to act upon the Book and the Sunna while there is the fiqh,” has been fabricated by religion reformers. Neither an ’âlim nor a Muslim has said or written so. It is written in religion reformers’ books only.
As for raising the finger in salât, it is explained in detail in the third volume of Ma’ârif as-sunan. Giving examples from many books, the book prefers the raising of the finger. However, Hadrat al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî, in the 312th letter of the first volume of his Maktûbât, alluded to his deep penetration into the methods and principles of madhhabs and the superiority of mujtahids, and after quoting the hadîths showing that the finger was to be raised, he listed also the valuable fatwas informing that it was harâm and makrûh. With strong documentary evidences, he proved that it would be more prudent not to raise the finger. In this conclusion, he depended, again, upon the hadîth ash-sherîf of Rasûlullah, the Master of Mankind (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam). This letter in Maktûbât fully exposed to view how meticulously the imâms of Islam observed the matter for adapting themselves to a hadîth ash-sherîf. Hadrat Ahmad Sa’îd al-Fârûqî ad-Dahlawî, one of the ’ulamâ’ of Islam and great men of tasawwuf of India, explained fully the comments of the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh on the raising of the finger. He wrote in his sixty-third letter, “Some ’ulamâ’, seeing that there were many narrations about it, said that it was a sunna. Some others, seeing that the narrations were incongruous, said that the finger should not be raised. When there are two fatwâs on a matter, one may do it according to either of them. The person who does the one way should not belittle or censure those who do the other way.” As it is seen, the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh ordered Muslims to respect one another’s madhhabs. ’Alî al-Qârî’s speaking ill of al-Kaidânî’s fiqh book is not surprising; it is written in the book Al-fawâ’id al-bahiyya that he was presumptuous against even such arch-stones of Islam as al-Imâm ash-Shafi’î and Imâm Mâlik, and that he was answered in a manner he deserved by Shaikh Muhammad Miskîn. ’Alî al-Qârî wrote a separate booklet to accuse Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) parents of disbelief and boasted about this booklet in his commentary on Shifâ’, and it is obvious that the commentaries and marginalias written by him on many valuable books are not worthy of making him an authority in Islam. Being an authority in Islam requires being a mujtahid. A non-mujtahids’ attempting to judge the great personages of Islam means to overflow the measures of decency.
Ahmad Ridâ Khan al-Barilawî (d. India, 1340/1921) wrote: “’Alî al-Qârî’ denied in his book Minah ar-rawd that Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) blessed mother and father had died as Believers, and said, ‘To refute it, I wrote a separate booklet. In this booklet, showing proofs from the Book, the Sunna, qiyâs and ijmâ’ al-Umma, I refuted what al-Imâm as-Suyûtî wrote in his three booklets.’ Al-Imâm as-Suyûtî (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) wrote six booklets to prove that Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) blessed parents had died as Believers. This is not a subject of fiqh, that is, it is not a teaching that can be included in af’âl al-mukallafîn and defined as halâl, harâm, sahîh or fâsid. Therefore, there is not any qiyâs or ijmâ’ about it. The disagreement between the ’ulamâ’ on this matter is obvious. The great ’âlim of Islam al-Imâm as-Suyûtî was thoroughly right. It is also surprising that ’Alî al-Qârî’ said he had shown proofs from the Book. The Qur’ân al-kerîm does not mention it, neither openly nor figuratively. Furthermore, for pointing out any similarity between such matters and the things that were the causes of the revelation of some ayâts, one has to document it with hadîths. Al-Imâm as-Suyûtî was such a profound ’âlim of Islam that he can never be compared to ’Alî al-Qârî’ and the like. He was much more gifted in distinguishing hadîths from one another and in knowing their ’illa, rijâl and ahwâl than ’Alî al-Qârî’ and the like, who had no other way than keeping quiet or surrendering to his writings. This great imâm documented his writings with overwhelming and silencing evidences. If mountains understood the soundness of his documentation, they would melt.”[30]
37 - The religion reformer, at the beginning of the Eleventh Dialogue, writes on behalf of the preacher:
“We were prohibited from looking at and acting upon what we would see in any books other than the books of the scholars of our own madhhab. In fact, we were told that those writings of Kamâl Ibn Humâm, who was a mujtahidi fi ’l-madhhab, which disagreed with the rules of the madhhab, were not to be acted upon even if they would be based upon sound evidences.”
It is ever possible that a preacher of Islam would say such absurd and mendacious things? Yet the religion reformer becomes so furious, so vindictive when attacking the Ahl as-Sunna that he overflows not only beyond knowledge and decency but also beyond reason and becomes unconscious with rage. Here, he touches upon one of the subtle matters of ’ilm al-usûl al-fiqh, which could be explained briefly as follows: There have been seven grades for the fuqahâ’ (scholars of fiqh) of the four madhhabs. The first grade belonged to mujtahidi fi ’sh-shar’. In this grade were the four a’immat al-madhhâhib. They established the methods (usûl) and principles (qawâ’id) of their own madhhabs. In the second grade were the mujtahidi fi ’l-madhhab, the mujtahids belonging to a madhhab, such as the mujtahids among al-Imâm al-a’zam’s disciples, who deduced rules from documents by following the principles set by him. In the third grade were the scholars called mujtahidi fi’l-masâ’il, who deduced the rules for the matters that had not been mentioned by the imâm al-madhhab and his disciples. They could not disagree with them. The ’ulamâ’ such as at-Tahawî, Abû’l-Hasan al-Karkhî, Shams al-a’imma al-Halwânî, Shams al-a’imma as-Sarahsî and Qâdî Khân were in this grade. In the fourth grade were the as-hâb at-takhrîj, who were not mujtahids. They explained the brief statements and unclear rules of the mujtahids. Ar-Râzî was one of them. In the fifth grade were the as’hâb at-tarjîh, who classified the narrations in the order of their soundness. So were al-Qudûrî and al-Marghinânî, the author of al-Hidâya. In the sixth grade were the as’hâb at-tamyiz, who distinguished the qâwî, da’îf, zâhir and nâdir narrations from one another. The authors of the books Kanz, Mukhtâr and Wiqâya were among them. Those who were in the seventh grade could not do any of these; none of them could issue a fatwâ disagreeing with the madhhab unless there was urgency or difficulty.
The religion reformer distorts this and claims that it was prohibited to read or to act upon a book that did not belong to one’s own madhhab. On the contrary, any Muslim, like the scholars mentioned above, may read and learn the book of any madhhab he wishes. He may transfer himself to another madhhab if he wants to. When there is difficulty, that is, urgent necessity, everybody can do the easy ways (rukhsas) permitted in his own madhhab. If he cannot, he may do the easy ways in another madhhab, thus getting out of the difficult situation. However, when doing an affair in accordance with another madhhab, he has to do the commands and abstain from the prohibitions pertaining to that affair in that madhhab. For this reason, he has to have learned the points which are necessary in that madhhab. Ibn ’Âbidîn writes at the beginning of the third volume of Radd al-muhtâr that Ibn Humâm was one of the as’hâb at-tarjîh. That is, contrary to what the religion reformer says, he was, let alone being a mujtahid mutlaq, not a mujtahid at all. Like any muqallid, he, too, had to follow a madhhab. The religion reformer said before that such scholars as Ibn ’Âbidîn were the imitators of the imitators because they followed such muqallids as Ibn Humâm. And now he attempts to blame them by saying that they did not follow them. He does not know what to do to belittle Ahl as-Sunna! The books written by the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna tell everything plainly. For example, the great scholar Hadrat Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Makkî, in his Al-fatâwâ ’l-hadîthiyya, explained whether a person who follows a madhhab may follow another madhhab or not:
“Imâm Abu ’l-Hasan ’Alî as-Subkî (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) says that there are seven different cases of following another madhhab: 1) If a person believes that the ijtihâd of another madhhab on a certain matter is more dependable than that of his own madhhab, it is permissible for him to do that matter in accordance with that madhhab. 2) A person who cannot know which of the two imâms of madhhabs is more hitting in his ijtihâd on a certain matter may do that matter in accord with either of these madhhabs. If he prefers the madhhab other than his with the purpose of a religious precaution, for example, for the purpose of avoiding the harâm, his action will be permissible without any karâha (anything disliked by the Prophet). If he has a different intention, it will be makrûh. 3) Though it is permissible to follow another madhhab showing an easy way in something which one needs to do, it is wâjib for him to follow one of the two imâms whose documentary evidence, he believes, is stronger. 4) It is not permissible to follow another madhhab without any need and because of the desire to do the easy way without knowing which of them is stronger. If one does so, one will have obeyed not Islam but one’s own desire. 5) It is not permissible to do one’s affairs in accord with the collection of the rukhsas of madhhabs since it is against Islam to do so. 6) By consensus, it is not permissible to do an affair in accord with more than one madhhab if it is not sahîh in one of these madhhabs. It is da’îf (not probable) that Kamâl ibn Humâm said it was permissible. 7) While the effects of something which one has done in accordance with one madhhab are still going on, one is not permitted to follow another madhhab. For example, if a person, because there is the right of shuf’a[31] in the Hanafî madhhab, follows the Hanafî madhhab and buys his neighbor’s house from the person who has bought it before, he cannot follow the Shâfi’î madhhab in doing anything concerning this house.”
38 - The religion reformer says:
“It is harâm to follow a muqallid. A person who has heard a sahîh hadîth cannot be told to compare this hadîth with so and so’s ijtihâd and to act upon it if it is in agreement with it. He can be told to investigate if it is mansûkh. But this is a job for an expert. Those who are not experts should obey the âyat, “Those who do not know should ask those who know!” and ask those who are experts. It is good for a person to love all the mujtahid imâms and to follow each of them in cases when he is sure they agree with the Sunna.”
Certainly it is harâm to follow a muqallid. But, believing and acting upon the information given by a Muslim who is muqallid does not mean following him. A person cannot be told, “Compare this hadîth with so and so’s ijtihâd and act upon it if it is in agreement with it.” But he can be told, “Compare what you understand from this hadîth sherîf with the ijtihâd of your madhhab’s imâm. If they are unlike each other, act in accord not with what you understand but with what your madhhab’s imâm understood.” Sanâullâh-i Pâniputî (rahmatullâhu ta’âlâ ’alaih), a great Islamic scholar of India who died in 1225 A.H. (1810), said in the tafsîr of the 64th âyat of Sûrat âl ’Imrân in Tafsîr-i mazharî written by him in 1197: “If one encounters a sahîh hadîth, and if it is known that it is not mansûkh, and if a fatwâ of al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih), for example, is not consistent with it while one of the other three madhhabs has an ijtihâd consistent with this hadîth, one who is Hanafî has to practise not the fatwâ of his imâm but this hadîth by following the other madhhab which employed ijtihâd according to this hadîth,[32] because Abû Hanîfa said, ‘If you see a hadîth or a saying of a Sahâbî, avoid