Bismillah,

Quoting earlier scholars, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah stated,

إجْمَاعُهُم حُجَّةٌ قَاطِعَةٌ واخْتِلافُهُم رَحْمَةٌ واسِعَةٌ.

Their [the scholars’] consensus is a definitive proof, and their divergence of opinion is a vast mercy.^[1]

The vastness of our fiqhi legacy and the many disagreements among the different madhâhib and independent mujtahideen cause frustration to some students of fiqh and junior fuqahâ’. This is, however, a major source of flexibility that enables renewal. Many followers of the four most reputable schools allowed transfer (tanaqqul), even for the public,^[2] from one madhhab to another, and takhayyur (expert selection) or patching positions (talfeeq) from the different madhâhib; something that is frequently done in contemporary fiqh assemblies by scholars who are otherwise wholly committed to their own madhâhib.

Concerning the concept of tanaqqul from one madhhab to another, Imam Ibn Nujaym al-Ḥanafi wrote:

“It is permissible to follow any mujtahid one pleases, even after the codification of the madhâhib as is the case today. It is also permissible for him to transfer from his madhhab, but he should not seek out the concessions (rukhaṣ), and if he did, would he be a deviant (fâsiq)? [There are] two views. The commentator said, the most eminent view: [he is] not; and Allah knows best. In the beginning of At-tatârkhaniyah, [the author] wrote two chapters on religious decrees; the summary of the first is that Abu Yusuf said that issuing a fatwa is permissible only for a mujtahid, while Muhammad permitted it for anyone whose correct views are more numerous than his errors. It is reported from Al-iskâf that the most knowledgeable in a town has no excuse to avoid [issuing fatwas].”^[3]

Imam Zakariyâ al-Anṣâri ash-Shâfiʽi said:

“It is permissible for the non-mujtahid “to follow any mujtahid he chooses, if the madhâhib are codified like they are today”. Then, they may follow each of them in some issues, for the Companions used to ask someone one time and another one another time, without any denunciation [of this practice by any of them]. “He may also transfer from his madhhab” to another one, whether or not we said he is bound to seek the more knowledgeable or allowed him to choose any of them, as when he follows someone in their ijtihâd concerning the qibla sometimes and [follows] another one at other times. However, he may not seek out the concessions, for selecting them leads to the compromise of one’s religious dutifulness. “If he still chose them from the different madhâhib, would he become a deviant (fâsiq)? Two views; the more esteemed one: no.” This is different from one who selects them from the madhâhib that have not been documented, if he was in the early era, he would certainly not be a deviant (fâsiq), but if he is from the latter ages, it appears that he would become a deviant (fâsiq) for sure.”^[4]

The Ḥanbalis agree with this concept, and Abu al-Khaṭṭâb al-Kallodhani (rh) even cites consensus on it.^[5] Al-Qâḍi Abu Yaʽlâ (rh) cites several reports from Aḥmad allowing his disciples and other people who asked him to find a concession in fatwas by other scholars, referring them at times to Abdul Wahhâb al-Warrâq, Isḥâq, or Abu Thawr, and even to locations where scholars gathered to ask any of them.^[6] It is obvious that, to Abu Yaʽlâ (d. 458 AH), the concept was not limited to the four madhâhib.

The utility of weak or unauthorized positions

Even if we consider an opinion weak, it may sometimes be adopted to relieve some hardship, provided that it meets certain conditions, as found in the following verses by the Mâliki author of Marâqi as-soʽood:

وكَوْنِهِ يُلْــجى إليهِ الضَّرَرُ     إنْ كانَ لَمْ يَشْتَــدّ فِيهِ الخَوَرُ

وثَبَتَ العَــزْوُ وقَـدْ تَحَقَّقَا       ضُرّاً مَن الضُّرُّ بِهِ تَعَلَّــــقَا

“Finally, because the pressing need or necessity may compel people to act upon such [weak positions] if they are not too weak, and their attribution [to a mujtahid] was established, and the one under duress is certain of his/her necessity.”^[7]

One may add to those two more conditions that al–Qarâfi quoted from previous Mâliki scholars:

1. That one does not seek out concessions wherever they are.

This may be part of the condition mentioned above, which is the presence of need. Thus, one may not screen all the madhâhib of the previous scholars in order to take the easiest position among them concerning every matter. This is the position of the vast majority. A minority of scholars allowed this. They also attribute it to ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azeez, who said,

 مَا أُحِبُّ أَنَّ أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَخْتَلِفُوا؛ لأَنَّهُ لَوْ كَانُوا قَوْلا وَاحِدًا كَانَ النَّاسُ فِي ضِيقٍ وَإِنَّهُمْ أَئِمَّةٌ يُقْتَدَى بِهِمْ وَلَوْ أَخَذَ رَجُلٌ بِقَوْلِ أَحَدِهِمْ كَانَ فِي سَعَةٍ

I would not like it if the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had not differed, for if they had agreed on one opinion, people would be restricted. They (the Companions) are the leaders to be followed, and if a person were to adopt the opinion of one of them, he would not be blameworthy.^[8]

However, the vast majority of scholars qualify that statement to mean that one may take an easier position of a qualified mujtahid if it spares him or her some hardship, but may not simply select every easy position he or she encounters.

2. That one does not compose a position which is rejected by consensus. (This applies mostly to talfeeq (patching or mixing of different positions.)

Al-Qarâfi approvingly reported from az-Zanâti that the three conditions to make a transfer from one madhhab to another permissible is that one does not patch the opinions of the different madhâhib in a way that produces a position which has been rejected by consensus, that the person engaging in this talfeeq believes in the virtue of the mujtahid being followed, and that they do not choose the concessions from all the madhâhib. Al-Qarâfi commented that the concessions that are not to be adopted are those that are unfounded and that may be revoked even if issued by a judge.^[9]

Also, talfeeq that leads to the synthesis of a position rejected by all of the integrated madhâhib should only be forbidden in certain cases. If one engages in taqleed (following) of one imam in some clauses of a sale transaction and another in others, this contract should still be valid, unless the clauses are mutually exclusive or lead to inequity or deviation that is repugnant to the maqâṣid of the Shariah. This is based on the stronger position, which is that the ‘ammi (the layperson) has no madhhab.^[10] An example of forbidden talfeeq is when someone marries without witnesses, citing Imam Mâlik, and without announcement, citing the majority. This marriage is a secretive relationship that is considered unlawful by all. Another example is when one applies different standards to oneself than one applies to others, such as invoking the right to preemption against one of his neighbors but refusing to honor it if another neighbor attempted to use it against him.

It should be obvious that these examples are different from the case of a layperson asking two muftis about two different matters pertaining to wudu (wuḍoo’: ablution) and getting an answer from a Shâfiʽi mufti that wiping any part of the hair is sufficient and another answer from a Ḥanafi that (a man) touching a woman without lust is not a nullifier. If he makes wudu according to the Shâfiʽi position and then touches a woman without lust, he will have retained his wudu according to any of the four. Despite that, it seems that his wudu should still be valid.^[11] These issues are neither interdependent nor mutually exclusive. Although the majority of scholars after the tenth century prevented this, we do not find it mentioned before the seventh century.^[12] Also, it is the consensus of the Companions that one who asked Abu Bakr and ‘Umar about one issue may ask Muʽadh, Abu Hurayrah, or others, about another issue.^[13] They never restricted this to issues that do not pertain to the same act of worship. Without the permission of regulated talfeeq many modern contracts would not be permissible according to any single madhhab. Much hardship would ensue and the vastness of our fiqhi legacy would lose an important feature of its malleability and resilience.  

One may add another condition here, which is that the follower of the weaker position must not have certain knowledge of its faultiness. Imam ash-Shâfi‘i stated,

“أجمع المسلمون على أن من استبانت له سنة رسول الله صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لم يكن له أن يدعها لقول أحد من الناس.”

“The Muslims have unanimously agreed that whomever the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) becomes apparent to, it becomes impermissible for him to leave it for the statement of anyone else, regardless of who they are.”^[14]

While he was talking about the scholars, the same may apply to all people who are certain of the erroneousness of some position.^[15] Wâbisah bin Maʽbad (ra) said: I came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and he said, “You have come to ask about righteousness.” I replied, “Yes.” He (ﷺ) said,

“اسْتَفْتِ قَلْبَكَ؛ الْبِرُّ مَا اطْمَأنَّتْ إِلَيْهِ النَّفْسُ وَاطْمَأنَّ إِلَيْهِ الْقَلْبُ، وَالإِثْمُ مَا حَاكَ فِي النَّفْسِ وَتَرَدَّدَ فِي الصَّدْرِ وَإِنْ أَفْتَاكَ النَّاسُ وَأَفْتَوْكَ”

“Consult your heart. Righteousness is that about which the soul feels at ease and the heart feels tranquil. And ithm (sin) is that which wavers in the soul and causes uneasiness in the breast, even though people have repeatedly given you their legal opinion.”^[16]  

وصلى الله على محمد وآله والحمد لله رب العالمين

[1] Majmoo‘ al-fatâwâ, 30/80. The hadith cited in this regard is not authentic.

[2] At-taqreer wal-taḥbeer ‘ala taḥreer al-kamâl, 3/352.

وَقَالَ الرُّويَانِيُّ: يَجُوزُ تَقْلِيدُ الْمَذَاهِبِ وَالِانْتِقَالُ إلَيْهَا بِثَلَاثَةِ شُرُوطٍ أَنْ لَا يَجْمَعَ بَيْنَهُمَا عَلَى صُورَةٍ تُخَالِفُ الْإِجْمَاعَ كَمَنْ تَزَوَّجَ بِغَيْرِ صَدَاقٍ وَلَا وَلِيٍّ وَلَا شُهُودٍ فَإِنَّ هَذِهِ الصُّورَةَ لَمْ يَقُلْ بِهَا أَحَدٌ وَأَنْ يَعْتَقِدَ فِيمَنْ يُقَلِّدُهُ الْفَضْلَ بِوُصُولِ أَخْبَارِهِ إلَيْهِ وَلَا يُقَلِّدُ أُمِّيًّا فِي عَمَايَةٍ وَأَلَّا يَتَتَبَّعَ رُخَصَ الْمَذَاهِبِ، وَتَعَقَّبَ الْقَرَافِيُّ هَذَا بِأَنَّهُ إنْ أَرَادَ بِالرُّخَصِ مَا يُنْقَضُ فِيهِ قَضَاءُ الْقَاضِي وَهُوَ أَرْبَعَةٌ مَا خَالَفَ الْإِجْمَاعَ أَوْ الْقَوَاعِدَ أَوْ النَّصَّ أَوْ الْقِيَاسَ الْجَلِيَّ فَهُوَ حَسَنٌ مُتَعَيِّنٌ فَإِنَّ مَا لَا نُقِرُّهُ مَعَ تَأَكُّدِهِ بِحُكْمِ الْحَاكِمِ فَأَوْلَى أَنْ لَا نُقِرَّهُ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ، وَإِنْ أَرَادَ بِالرُّخَصِ مَا فِيهِ سُهُولَةٌ عَلَى الْمُكَلَّفِ كَيْفَمَا كَانَ يَلْزَمُهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَنْ قَلَّدَ مَالِكًا فِي الْمِيَاهِ وَالْأَرْوَاثِ وَتَرْكِ الْأَلْفَاظِ فِي الْعُقُودِ مُخَالِفًا لِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ، وَلَيْسَ كَذَلِكَ وَتَعَقُّبُ الْأَوَّلِ بِأَنَّ الْجَمْعَ الْمَذْكُورَ لَيْسَ بِضَائِرٍ فَإِنَّ مَالِكًا مَثَلًا لَمْ يَقُلْ إنَّ مَنْ قَلَّدَ الشَّافِعِيَّ فِي عَدَمِ الصَّدَاقِ أَنَّ نِكَاحَهُ بَاطِلٌ وَإِلَّا لَزِمَ أَنْ تَكُونَ أَنْكِحَةُ الشَّافِعِيَّةِ عِنْدَهُ بَاطِلَةٌ، وَلَمْ يَقُلْ الشَّافِعِيُّ إنَّ مِنْ قَلَّدَ مَالِكًا فِي عَدَمِ الشُّهُودِ أَنَّ نِكَاحَهُ بَاطِلٌ، وَإِلَّا لَزِمَ أَنْ تَكُونَ أَنْكِحَةُ الْمَالِكِيَّةِ بِلَا شُهُودٍ عِنْدَهُ بَاطِلَةٌ. قُلْت: لَكِنْ فِي هَذَا التَّوْجِيهِ نَظَرٌ غَيْرُ خَافٍ وَوَافَقَ ابْنُ دَقِيقِ الْعِيدِ الرُّويَانِيَّ عَلَى اشْتِرَاطِ أَنْ لَا يَجْتَمِعَ فِي صُورَةٍ يَقَعُ الْإِجْمَاعُ عَلَى بُطْلَانِهَا، وَأَبْدَلَ الشَّرْطَ الثَّالِثَ بِأَنْ لَا يَكُونَ مَا قَلَّدَ فِيهِ مِمَّا يُنْقَضُ فِيهِ الْحُكْمُ لَوْ وَقَعَ وَاقْتَصَرَ الشَّيْخُ عِزُّ الدِّينِ بْنُ عَبْدِ السَّلَامِ عَلَى اشْتِرَاطِ هَذَا وَقَالَ: وَإِنْ كَانَ الْمَأْخَذَانِ مُتَقَارِبَيْنِ جَازَ. وَالشَّرْطُ الثَّانِي انْشِرَاحُ صَدْرِهِ لِلتَّقْلِيدِ الْمَذْكُورِ وَعَدَمُ اعْتِقَادِهِ لِكَوْنِهِ مُتَلَاعِبًا بِالدِّينِ مُتَسَاهِلًا فِيهِ وَدَلِيلُ هَذَا الشَّرْطِ قَوْلُهُ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – «وَالْإِثْمُ مَا حَاكَ فِي الصَّدْرِ» فَهَذَا تَصْرِيحٌ بِأَنَّ مَا حَاكَ فِي النَّفْسِ فَفِعْلُهُ إثْمٌ اهـ. قُلْت: أَمَّا عَدَمُ اعْتِقَادِ كَوْنِهِ مُتَلَاعِبًا بِالدِّينِ مُتَسَاهِلًا فِيهِ فَلَا بُدَّ مِنْهُ وَأَمَّا انْشِرَاحُ صَدْرِهِ لِلتَّقْلِيدِ فَلَيْسَ عَلَى إطْلَاقِهِ كَمَا أَنَّ الْحَدِيثَ كَذَلِكَ أَيْضًا وَهُوَ بِلَفْظِ «وَالْإِثْمُ مَا حَاكَ فِي نَفْسِك وَكَرِهْت أَنْ يَطَّلِعَ عَلَيْهِ النَّاسُ» فِي صَحِيحِ مُسْلِمٍ وَبِلَفْظِ «وَالْإِثْمُ مَا حَاكَ فِي الْقَلْبِ وَتَرَدَّدَ فِي الصَّدْرِ، وَإِنْ أَفْتَاك النَّاسُ وَأَفْتَوْكَ» فِي مُسْنَدِ أَحْمَدَ فَقَدْ قَالَ الْحَافِظُ الْمُتْقِنُ ابْنُ رَجَبٍ فِي الْكَلَامِ عَلَى هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ مُشِيرًا إلَيْهِ بِاللَّفْظِ الْأَوَّلِ أَنَّهُ إشَارَةٌ إلَى أَنَّ الْإِثْمَ مَا أَثَّرَ فِي الصَّدْرِ حَرَجًا وَضِيقًا وَقَلَقًا وَاضْطِرَابًا فَلَمْ يَنْشَرِحْ لَهُ الصَّدْرُ وَمَعَ هَذَا فَهُوَ عِنْدَ النَّاسِ مُسْتَنْكَرٌ بِحَيْثُ يُنْكِرُونَهُ عِنْدَ اطِّلَاعِهِمْ عَلَيْهِ وَهَذَا أَعْلَى مَرَاتِبِ مَعْرِفَةِ الْإِثْمِ عِنْدَ الِاشْتِبَاهِ، وَهُوَ مَا اسْتَنْكَرَهُ النَّاسُ فَاعِلُهُ وَغَيْرُ فَاعِلِهِ وَمِنْ هَذَا الْمَعْنَى قَوْلُ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ مَا رَآهُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ حَسَنًا فَهُوَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ حَسَنٌ وَمَا رَآهُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ قَبِيحًا فَهُوَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ قَبِيحٌ وَمُشِيرًا إلَيْهِ بِاللَّفْظِ الثَّانِي يَعْنِي مَا حَاكَ فِي صَدْرِ الْإِنْسَانِ فَهُوَ إثْمٌ، وَإِنْ أَفْتَاهُ غَيْرُهُ بِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِإِثْمٍ فَهَذِهِ مَرْتَبَةٌ ثَانِيَةٌ وَهُوَ أَنْ يَكُونَ الشَّيْءُ مُسْتَنْكَرًا عِنْدَ فَاعِلِهِ دُونَ غَيْرِهِ وَقَدْ جَعَلَهُ أَيْضًا إثْمًا وَهَذَا إنَّمَا يَكُونُ إذَا كَانَ صَاحِبُهُ مِمَّنْ شُرِحَ صَدْرُهُ بِالْإِيمَانِ وَكَانَ الْمُفْتِي لَهُ يُفْتِي بِمُجَرَّدِ ظَنٍّ أَوْ مَيْلٍ إلَى هَوًى مِنْ غَيْرِ دَلِيلٍ شَرْعِيٍّ. فأما ما كان مع المفتى به دليل شرعي فالواجب على المستفتي الرجوع إليه ، وإن لم ينشرح له صدره وهذا كالرخص الشرعية مثل الفطر في السفر والمرض وقصر الصلاة ونحو ذلك مما لا ينشرح به صدر كثير من الجهال فهذا لا عبرة به.

[3] Al-baḥr ar-râ’iq, 6/292. At-taqreer wal-taḥbeer, 3/352.

“(فَصْلٌ يَجُوزُ تَقْلِيدُ مَنْ شَاءَ مِنْ الْمُجْتَهِدِينَ( وَإِنْ دُوِّنَتْ الْمَذَاهِبُ كَالْيَوْمِ وَلَهُ الِانْتِقَالُ مِنْ مَذْهَبِهِ لَكِنْ لَا يَتَّبِعُ الرُّخَصَ فَإِنْ تَتَبَّعَهَا مِنْ الْمَذَاهِبِ فَهَلْ يَفْسُقُ وَجْهَانِ اهـ. قَالَ الشَّارِحُ أَوْجَهُهُمَا لَا وَاَللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ أَعْلَمُ، وَقَدْ عَقَدَ فِي أَوَّلِ التَّتَارْخَانِيَّة فَصْلَيْنِ فِي الْفَتْوَى حَاصِلُ الْأَوَّلِ أَنَّ أَبَا يُوسُفَ قَالَ لَا تَحِلُّ الْفَتْوَى إلَّا لِمُجْتَهِدٍ وَمُحَمَّدٌ جَوَّزَهَا إذَا كَانَ صَوَابُ الرَّجُلِ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ خَطَئِهِ وَعَنْ الْإِسْكَافِ أَنَّ الْأَعْلَمَ بِالْبَلَدِ لَا يَسَعُهُ تَرْكُهَا.”

[4] Asna al-Maṭâlib fi Sharḥ Rawd aṭ-Ṭâlib by Zakariyâ al-Anṣâri, Cairo: Dâr al-Kitâb al-Islâmi, 4/286.

(فَرْعٌ يَجُوزُ) لِغَيْرِ الْمُجْتَهِدِ (تَقْلِيدُ مَنْ شَاءَ مِنْ الْمُجْتَهِدِينَ إنْ دُوِّنَتْ الْمَذَاهِبُ كَالْيَوْمِ) فَلَهُ أَنْ يُقَلِّدَ كُلًّا فِي مَسَائِلَ؛ لِأَنَّ الصَّحَابَةَ كَانُوا يَسْأَلُونَ تَارَةً مِنْ هَذَا وَتَارَةً مِنْ هَذَا مِنْ غَيْرِ نَكِيرٍ (وَلَهُ الِانْتِقَالُ مِنْ مَذْهَبِهِ) إلَى مَذْهَبٍ آخَرَ سَوَاءٌ قُلْنَا يَلْزَمُهُ الِاجْتِهَادُ فِي طَلَبِ الْأَعْلَمِ أَمْ خَيَّرْنَاهُ كَمَا يَجُوزُ لَهُ أَنْ يُقَلِّدَ فِي الْقِبْلَةِ هَذَا أَيَّامًا، وَهَذَا أَيَّامًا (لَكِنْ لَا يَتَّبِعُ الرُّخَصَ) لِمَا فِي تَتَبُّعِهَا مِنْ انْحِلَالِ رِبْقَةِ التَّكْلِيفِ (فَإِنْ تَتَبَّعَهَا مِنْ الْمَذَاهِبِ الْمُدَوَّنَةِ فَهَلْ يُفَسَّقُ) أَوْ لَا (وَجْهَانِ) أَوْجَهُهُمَا لَا بِخِلَافِ تَتَبُّعِهِمَا مِنْ الْمَذَاهِبِ غَيْرِ الْمُدَوَّنَةِ فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي الْعَصْرِ الْأَوَّلِ فَلَا يُفَسَّقُ قَطْعًا وَإِلَّا فَيَظْهَرُ أَنَّهُ يُفَسَّقُ قَطْعًا.

[5] At-tamheed by al-Kallodhani, 4/334.

واحتج: بأنه لو كان الحق في واحد ما أجمع على التسويغ للعامي تقليد من شاء من المجتهدين، فلما أجمعوا على ذلك دل على أن كل مجتهد مصيب.        

[6] Al-‘uddah fi uṣool al-fiqh by Abu Ya’lâ al-Farrâ’, 5/1571. Retrieved from Shamilah [computer software].

وأما تسويغ العامي تقليد من يشاء من المجتهدين فلعمري انه كذلك. وهو ظاهر كلام أحمد -رحمه الله- في رواية الحسين بن بشار المخرمي وقد سأله عن مسألة من الطلاق فقال: “إن فعل حنث. فقال له: يا أبا عبد الله إن أفتاني إنسان، يعني: لا يحنث؟ فقال له: تعرف حلقة المدنيين بالرَّصافة؟ قال له: فإن أفتوفي يحل؟ قال نعم”. وهذا يدل على أنه لا يلزمه الاجتهاد في أعيان المفتيين؛ لأنه أرشده إلى حلقة المدنيين، ولم يأمره بالاجتهاد في ذلك. ويدل أيضاً على أن العامي إذا سأل عالِميْن، فأفتاه أحدهما بالحظر والآخر بالإباحة أنه يجوز له أن يأخذ بقول من أفتاه بالإباحة. وكذلك نقل ابن القاسم الحنبلي أنه قال لأحمد -رحمه الله-: ربما اشتدَّ علينا الأمر من جهتك فمن نسأل؟ فقال: “سلوا عبد الوهاب[الوراق]. وكذلك نقل الحسن بن محمد بن الحارث عن أحمد -رحمه الله- أنه سئل عن مسألةٍ فقال: “سل إسحاق بن راهويه”. وكذلك نقل أحمد بن محمد البُرَاثي عن أحمد أنه سئل عن مسألة فقال: “سل غيرنا، سل العلماء، سل أبا ثور”.

[7] Nashr al-bunood ‘ala Marâqi as-So’ood by Abdullâh Ibn Ibrâheem al-‘Alawi, 2/270-271. Retrieved from Shamilah [computer software].

[8] Jâmi‘ bayân al-‘ilm wa faḍlih by Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr, 2/901. Retrieved from Shamilah [computer software].

[9] Sharḥ tanqeeḥ al-fuṣool, p. 432.

“الفرع الثاني: التنقل من مذهب إلى آخر… الثاني: قال الزَّنَاتيَ: يجوز تقليد المذاهب في النوازل، والانتقالُ من مذهبٍ إلى مذهب بثلاثة شروط: – ألاَ يَجْمع بينهما على وجهٍ يخالف الإجماع، كمن تزوَّج بغير صَدَاقٍ ولا ولي ولا شهود، فإن هذه الصورة لم يقل بها أحد. – وأن يعتقد فيمن يُقلِّده الفَضْلَ بوصول أخباره إليه، ولا يقلده* رَمْياً في عَمَاية. – ألاَّ يتتبَّع رُخَصَ المذاهب. قال: والمذاهب كلها مسالك إلى الجنة، وطرق إلى الخيرات، فمن سلك منها طريقاً وصله. تنبيه: قال غيره: يجوز تقليد المذاهب والانتقال إليها في كل ما لا يُنْقَض فيه حكم الحاكم وهو أربعة: ما خالف الإجماع، أو القواعد، أو النص، أو القياس الجلي. فإن أراد رحمه الله [الزناتي] بالرُّخَص هذه الأربعة فهو حَسَنٌ متعيِّنٌ، فإن ما لا نُقِرُّه مع تأكده بحكم الحاكم فأولى ألاَّ نُقِرُّه قبل ذلك، وإن أراد بالرخص ما فيه سهولة على المكلَّف -كيف كان – يلزمه أن يكون مَنْ قَلَّد مالكاً رحمه الله في المِيَاه [وهو ترخيصه في ماءٍ قليل تحلُّه نجاسة يسيرة ولم تغيّره] والأَرْوَاث [وهو ترخيصه في الصلاة بالخُفِّ أو النعل تتلطخ بأرواث الدواب وأبوالها بعد دَلْكها] وترك الألفاظ في العقود مخالفاً لتقوى الله تعالى وليس كذلك.”

[10] See Al-baḥr al-muḥeeṭ by az-Zarkashi, 8/375, Dâr al-Kutbi, 1997. Retrieved from Shamilah [computer software]; Hâshiyat Ibn ‘Âbideen, 2^nd ed., by Ibn ‘Âbideen, Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, 1/48.

البحر المحيط في أصول الفقه (8/ 375) أبو عبد الله بدر الدين محمد بن عبد الله بن بهادر الزركشي (المتوفى: 794هـ) وَحَكَى الرَّافِعِيُّ عَنْ أَبِي الْفَتْحِ الْهَرَوِيِّ أَحَدِ أَصْحَابِ الْإِمَامِ أَنَّ مَذْهَبَ عَامَّةِ أَصْحَابِنَا أَنَّ الْعَامِّيَّ لَا مَذْهَبَ لَهُ.

الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين (رد المحتار) (1/ 48) ثُمَّ اعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ ذَكَرَ فِي التَّحْرِيرِ وَشَرْحِهِ أَيْضًا أَنَّهُ يَجُوزُ تَقْلِيدُ الْمَفْضُولِ مَعَ وُجُودِ الْأَفْضَلِ. وَبِهِ قَالَ الْحَنَفِيَّةُ وَالْمَالِكِيَّةُ وَأَكْثَرُ الْحَنَابِلَةِ وَالشَّافِعِيَّةُ. وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ وَطَائِفَةٍ كَثِيرَةٍ مِنْ الْفُقَهَاءِ لَا يَجُوزُ. ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ أَنَّهُ لَوْ الْتَزَمَ مَذْهَبًا مُعَيَّنًا. كَأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَالشَّافِعِيِّ، فَقِيلَ يَلْزَمُهُ، وَقِيلَ لَا وَهُوَ الْأَصَحُّ اهـ وَقَدْ شَاعَ أَنَّ الْعَامِّيَّ لَا مَذْهَبَ لَهُ.

[11] See Al-fiqh al-Islâmi wa adillatuhu by Wahbah az-Zuḥayli, Damascus: Dâr al-Fikr, 1/106-107.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Sharḥ tanqeeḥ al-fuṣool, p. 432.

[14] I‘lâm al-muwaqqi‘een, 1/6.

[15] See At-taqreer wat taḥbeer, 3/352.

[16] A reliable hadith reported by Imam Aḥmad and by ad-Dârimi with a good chain (sunnah.com/nawawi40/27).