_ living islam : Islamic tradition _ https://www.livingislam.org/ Taqlid of one school alone obligatory? (Q: c/f: Shaykh Salih al-Asmari, the young Hanbali scholar from Saudi also gives fatwa that the common person should adhere to one Madhab, he cited reference for it which I do not have access to at this time.) Do you mean this text? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sunna-Principles/files/Scans/Conditions%20of%20Tamadhhub.pdf If so, as you can see, he makes no stipulation of obligation of taqlid shakhsi nor of required adherence to a single madhhab. On the contrary he shows that it suffices the madhhab be Sunni and one of the Four for fatwa and qada', while if it is for one's own `amal then there is even more leeway.(*) Generally then, this confirms what Sayyid Salman said in his first post in his thread, may Allah Most High reward him, to the effect that the mu`tamad Hanafi position - in line with the other three schools - is that it is permissible to follow another Sunni school in any given ruling as long as one does so coherently: valid talfiq is permissible, rather than obligatory taqlid shakhsi. So the perceived prohibition of other than taqlid shakhsi among the Sunni scholars, whether from the Subcontinent or otherwise, needs to be revisited in light of (i) the above and (ii) the helpful remark that this prohibition may be relative, to prevent fitna or confusion (sadd al-dhara'i`) rather than as a legal ruling in itself. We also need to further ascertain the language in context. Perhaps, what `Allama Sa`eedi means by "the impermissibility of a muqallid doing taqlid of more than one imam" is "the impermissibility of a muqallid doing taqlid of more than one imam at one and the same time" - i.e. incoherent talfiq, which all agree is impermissible. Two side-notes and a footnote: 1. The entire la-madhhabi contingent in the Subcontinent of course dismisses any and all obligation of taqlid shakhsi. 2. As for the Madhhabis' rule that "The layperson (`aami) has no school except for the school of his Mufti" yes, but it is a two-edged sword: Ibn al-Qayyim also adduces it in a mother-text of la- madhhabiyya, I`lam al-Muwaqqi`in, to assert that the `ammi must then "follow the dalil" rather than any Imam of fiqh since, he argues, the `ammi can no more call himself a Hanafi or Maliki than he can call himself a nahwi or a faqih just by virtue of asking the people of dhikr. (*) By and large of course, the practice of many influential latter- day muftis has been to violate the rule that "the madhhab be Sunni and one of the Four for fatwa and qada'" and to give fatwa on the basis of other than the Four Schools e.g. Mawdudi, Sabiq, `Abduh, Shaltut, the Shakirs, the Ghumaris, Albani, Zuhayli, Qaradawi... All these have, in effect, blurred the line drawn by the Imams between fatwa and qada' on the one hand, and personal `amal on the other. GF Haddad 2009-01-17 Continued: (> The Shaykh also has a section called "In which situations a muqallid can act according to the saying of another Imam," (page 340-341) where he quotes from Imam al-Manawi, who in turns writes with reference to Imam al-Subki. Among the points they mention are: ... > 3) The muqallid finds a dispensation in the position of another Imam that he doesn't find with his own Imam, and he follows the position of that Imam because of a need or necessity, this is also permissible.) The above conclusion is, I believe, the heart of the matter. GF Haddad [Also:] On a side note, "following dispensations" is getting somewhat short changed in the documentation so far. After all, the need that makes taqlid of other than one's Madhhab permissible stems precisely from the pursuit of a dispensation. There is also a qawl (cited by al- Suyuti in his commentary on Jam` al-Jawami`) that following dispensations for ease is permissible in absolute terms without fisq nor karaha. I found the following discussion of tatabbu` al-rukhas useful and fair but note that what he means by "talfiq" is the prohibited talfiq: http://www.alkeltawia.com/vb/showpost.php?p=24031&postcount=3 GF Haddad