by Bushra Javaria Alvi
Dr. Muhammad walked into one of our first Hidāyah classes one day. Once he sat down, he was silent for a moment. We were all waiting for him to pick a student to do the review, as is usually the custom, but then he asked, “Why do you follow a madhhab?”
The question seemed simple enough, yet we were all stumped. After some attempts, a few students provided a short answer, leading to our respected teacher going into more detail. These side discussions are occasional but highly anticipated, as we not only learn academically through this but also get a boost of motivation for studying.
Being the mutakallim (theologian) he is, he points out how there is a problem in the question itself. Following isn’t blind imitation; rather, it’s a methodology to understand the rulings of Revelation. What makes a scholar a scholar isn’t memorizing rules but understanding principles. It’s nearly impossible not to have a madhhab (school of thought); you follow one even if you are not aware of it. He provided a scenario in which a husband dies while his wife is pregnant. There are two sides of the masʾalah (case study) to consider: the ʿiddah (waiting period) for a pregnant woman and her now being a widow. This scenario never occurred during the Prophet’s ﷺ time. ʿAlī (raḍīya Allāh ʿanhu) was known to practice iḥtiyāṭ (caution in matters of legal rulings). His position was that whichever one of the two considerations entailed the longer ʿiddah, that would be the ḥukm (ruling). So, it is either a period of four months and ten days or until she gives birth. Ibn Masʿūd (raḍīya Allāh ʿanhu) looked at which verse was revealed first and which was revealed later to determine the ruling. “One must have objective criteria on their approach (to fiqh),” Dr. Muhammad states, “otherwise they are just following their fancies.”
The foundation of our uṣūl (principles) is that we take the apparent meaning of Revelation as long as there is no taʿāruḍ (apparent contradiction). Praying, fasting, and other obligations aren’t a madhhab; rather, it is Islam. As for a madhhab, that is about ẓannī (probable) issues that have no certainty, like the above example. There will always be cases in which ijtihād (juristic reasoning) must be resorted to, so a madhhab must be objective and an impartial law that is above people’s desires. We have to appreciate that following the madhāhib (schools of thought) gives us an objective methodology and approach for giving legal rulings in cases that have no clear naṣṣ (Revelation), and hence they help us determine how to implement and resolve the apparent taʿāruḍ.
Thus, the question itself is paradoxically incorrect, as it assumes that it is possible to not have a madhhab which is, in itself, impossible. Either one will use their subjective reasoning or an objective method, therefore resulting in a madhhab.
