Imani_Nami

[I really took this one and ran with it, I’m sorry it’s so long]

First, I’m going to jump up and down and tell you to stop saying “School of Thought.”

Why?

Because “thought” is so nebulous. It’s like: “yahhhhhhh, I think this way, yahhhhhhhh.”

These are Schools of Law. Ell, ay, um. Double you? I think that’s how you spell it. You get the point. Law is serious. Law is meticulous. Law, in order to be effective, needs to be systematic, just, and methodological.

So these schools of law, what are they? They were established so that judges could make coherent and consistent legal rulings. Why? Because they were judges. Like real ones. The types that rule on divorces, inheritance, and all that kinda stuff.

Like, when people think of Rumi, what do they think of? “POETRYYYYYYYYYYYY ABOUT LUVVVVVVVV.” How did the guy pay the bills though? He was a Hanafi Judge (you use the Arabic word, Qadi, to sound fancy) and like, that’s how he paid for that life. You can’t write poetry and eat without a day job, usually. Rumi was a Qadi.

Why do I bring that up? Because Rumi had to be able to get consistent opinions. That was his job. Now, how do you do that?

You learn from a Madhab [School of Law].

So, what is a Madhab? They are schools of law, and what they do, functionally, is that they developed a methodology in which to create a coherent process from which to extract the law, first from The Qur’an and Sunnah, and then through “jurisprudential tools.”

[Do you want to learn more about this entire process? Read the following: A Simple Summary of the Four Sunni Schools of Law]

The problem with the way that these schools are taught is that they are like:

Hanafi = X, Shafi’i = Z, Maliki = A, etc etc etc.

These are clumsy, and inaccurate. If there are differences of opinion between the schools, do people not think it is possible that there can be differences within the schools?

GASP! There is!

Why?

Because, while there is a majority opinion of these schools, you’re not dealing with like “WE ARE THE MALIKI TEAM AND WE BELIEVE THIS! YAH!” You’re dealing with a methodology and that methodology will most likely yield certain answers.

BUT!

Differences emerge, because again, the focus isn’t on the answer, but on the methodology. So let me give you an example: for the Shafi’is, if you touch someone of the opposite gender, your wudhu is broken. For the Hanafis they say your wudhu is only broken if you’re touching them with some intent, like, heart eyes intent.

Now, Imam Ghazali is a master of Shafi’i Fiqh. And yet, he did not agree with the majority opinion, and held that touching someone of the opposite gender does not break your wudhu.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?! HOW?!

Because the focus of the jurist (scholar) is not about the answer, it’s about the methodology in which one uses to get to that answer.

Does that make sense?

Now, how does that apply to your question? Here is more background that I feel you need to know:

So which madhab do people follow? It usually is very regional, and that is based upon the various Muslim Empires and States and which School they used for their court system. These States wanted to have legal consistency for the people, so they favored one.

So the major jurists (scholars) of South Asia were Hanafi, and the rulers used Hanafis jurists to staff their legal systems, who also created their Islamic institutions. So, Desi kids are (mostly) Hanafi today. Ta da.

Now, I’m Egyptian. Why does that matter? Because Egypt’s South is Maliki, and Imam Shafi’i had a huge influence on Egypt, and then it was ruled by the Shia Fatimids, who were replaced by Salah Ad-Deen, the Kurdish Sultan, who brought Shafi’i rule back, and then the Ottomans came in, and with them, the Hanafis.

So Egypt is this mixture, they have this flexibility, and many Egyptians will slow blink at you when you ask them “what madhab are you?”

If you look at The Reliance of the Traveler, by Imam Al-Misri, which is a classic Shafi’i Fiqh manual, you’ll see the Shafi’i opinion, and then other opinions which are easier, or different, without panic.

Some people hate this. I get why they do. They say “you need to be consistent.”

Now, let me clear here: I understand (and agree) with the idea that if you are going to studying and/or applying Islamic knowledge, this methodological consistency is vitally important.

But that is not what we’re talking about here, and while wanting consistency in the study and application of Islam makes sense to me, the requirement that you must follow all the opinions of a madhab would only make sense to me if the madhabs were as mechanical as people pretend they are. But they aren’t.

Now, my cultural background might make it easier on me to shrug my shoulders. But I still think there is plenty of evidence (including Dar Al-Ifta Al-Missriyyah’s approach) that I tend to adhere to, which is, “hey, here are the options, you have to use your judgment here.”

People say that’s a cop-out and I disagree. Why? (I’m getting to the whole “how do I choose” part of your question here)

You’re going to be responsible for the choices you make. Not the Sheikh who you Fatwa shopped for. The Sheikh, obviously, is in a place of trust, but you’re the one who has to evaluate the information in front of you.

Let me put it more bluntly: you are the one who has to face God with your choices, no one else.

I think having a pure intent (niyah) is of central importance, to genuinely strive to make sense of Islam, relative to what you know, what you can understand, because we, the individual Muslims, are responsible for our deeds, no one else.

In The Qur'an, God speaks about this responsibility, mentioning what those who fail to recognize their personal responsibility will say:

“And they will say: ‘O our Sustainer! Behold, we paid heed unto our leaders and our great men, and it is they who have led us astray from the right path!” [33:67]

This ayah, interestingly enough, is about people who will, when facing God, will try and be like: “God! My leader told me I can do this! It’s not on me! It’s on them!”

Now, people are acting brand new. Look. People go Fatwa Shopping. They are making a choice. They listen to this Sheikh but not that one. They are acting like they’re making some dispassionate choice.

But you’re making a choice. Own that choice. Don’t let it paralyze you. Make the choice with a sincere intention. Know that if you make a mistake, God will not hold it against you, because actions are determined by their intentions. Focus on the purity of intentions and follow the choices that you are comfortable answering to God for. Remember: that does not mean that the harder answer is the better one, don’t let yourself spiral into that, but make a choice that makes the most sense to you and own it. Because I can’t help you on judgment day, no one can, only your deeds and God will.

There are scholars who disagree with me. I get why they do, I think the answer above underlines why I would disagree with them. But ultimately, again, you will answer for what choice you make. And it’s not like you weren’t make the choice before, I’m just highlighting what you are already doing. What we all do.

God is going to judge us based upon our sincerity and intention, work on those, and understand yourself (so important!!), so that you can make the best choice. Don’t fear making mistakes, because you’re going to make them, you’re not the first, nor are you the last, but you just have to work on sincerity, which requires self-reflection and understanding of how your head works. Why? Because, again, you will answer for your choices.