KR

*اکابرِ دیوبند کی غربت و ثروت پر مولانا نور الحسن راشد کاندھلوی کی رائے* ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ پیش کردہ: مولانا ارشد قاسم کاندھلوی ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ چند دنوں سے گفتگو ہے کہ غربت، علم اور تجارت اور تدریس کا ایک ساتھ جمع ہونا غیر مفید ہے۔ اس سلسلے میں، میں نے مولانا کاندھلوی مدظلہم سے عرض کیا کہ آپ نے تذکروں، سوانحاتِ اکابر کا اکثر مطالعہ فرمایا ہے، ان میں کیا ملتا ہے؟ مولانا مدظلّہ نے برجستہ فرمایا کہ یہ بات تو اصول کے خلاف ہے، اور پھر اکابر کی خوش حالی، ان کی ثروت و دولت مندی، ان کی تجارت، ان کے کمپنیوں میں حصے (shares) وغیرہ شمار کرائے، جو اس طرح ہیں: 1: حضرت شاہ عبدالعزیز محدث دہلوی کے ترکے میں نقد ایک لاکھ روپے (موجودہ دور کے تقریباً سات، آٹھ کروڑ) اور 50، 50 ہزار کے غالیچے تھے۔ 2: حضرت گنگوہی نہایت خوش حال تھے، لباس بھی ایسا عمدہ پہنتے تھے کہ لوگ نوابی لباس کہہ کر اعتراض کرتے تھے۔ 3: حضرت شیخ الہند اور مولانا خلیل احمد سہارن پوری، اگرچہ تجارت تو نہ کرتے تھے، لیکن اچھے ذرائعِ معاش اور آبائی جائیداد سے آسودہ حال تھے۔ 4: مولانا تھانوی کے کئی کمپنیوں میں تجارتی حصے (shares) تھے، نفیس لباس پہنتے تھے۔ 5: مفتی صدر الدین آزردہ اور مولانا فضلِ حق خیرآبادی وغیرہ، سب ہی علماء دولت مند تھے۔ 6: اکثر علماء کے استاد و مربی، حضرت مولانا احمد علی محدث سہارنپوری، نہایت خوشحال تھے۔ کئی کئی سو روپے سے 1297ھ سے پہلے لوگوں کا تعاون کرتے۔ مظاہر علوم کو سالانہ 500 روپے دیتے تھے۔ کلکتہ میں ملازمت کے وقت 1866ء میں 500 روپے تنخواہ تھی۔ 7: ہمارے خاندان کے سب لوگ خوشحال تھے، ان میں حضرت مولانا محمد الیاس بھی شامل ہیں، جن کی اپنی کئی سو بیگھا زمین تھی، جو کچھ ضرورت مندوں کو دے دی، کچھ خاتمۂ زمینداری میں ختم ہو گئی۔ یہ روایت و اطلاع درست نہیں کہ یہ سب سرمایہ و جائداد تبلیغ کی راہ میں صرف کر دیا تھا۔ 8: یہ بات بھی یاد رکھنے کی ہے کہ مدرسہ دیوبند (دارالعلوم) کے پہلے مدرس، مولانا ملا محمود دیوبندی کی ماہانہ تنخواہ 15 روپے مقرر ہوئی تھی۔ اس وقت ایک گھرانے کا اوسط عمدہ خرچ تین روپے تھا، سونا نو روپے فی تولہ تھا۔ اگر اتباع کی بات درست ہو تو ڈیڑھ تولہ سونے کی قیمت کے برابر تنخواہ طے ہونی چاہیے۔ 9: مولانا قاری احمد صاحب اور قاری طیب صاحب وغیرہ سب خوشحال تھے۔ حافظ احمد صاحب کے پانوں کی ڈبیا چار، پانچ روپے کی مالیت کی چاندی کی ہوتی تھی۔ 10: مولانا حبیب الرحمن عثمانی بھی اچھے آسودہ حال تھے۔ ان کا بڑا تجارتی اور اشاعتِ کتب کا کام، اور ایک عمدہ پریس بھی تھا۔ غربت اور علم کا ساتھ ہونا ضروری نہیں۔ ایثار و توکل کے ساتھ کام کرنا اچھی بات ہے، مگر ہر ایک کو اس کا پابند بنانا صحیح نہیں۔ ہمارے یہاں ایک تہائی علماء کی تعداد اچھے، خوشحال اور تجارت کے مالک ہیں۔

What’s the deal with many of the spiritual grandchildren of Imam Ashraf Ali Thanwi pretending as if they’re the gatekeepers to what should be considered the acceptable boundaries of morality and social conduct? They seem to be conflating their proclivities with Shariah. It certainly isn’t prophetic in its model. In fact, it almost smacks of a form of رهبانية, and we’re at a point of فما رعوها حق رعايتها. Sit yourselves down please.

Excuse the language The Golden Calf is no more https://x.com/i/status/2050226110873600239

(Sarcasm alert) Who is the greatest self-professed Mujtahid in the Hanafi School? Evidently, it is the one who, in spite having access, doesn't use the evidence used by the Imams, and instead uses the evidence offered by supposedly safer terrain proffered by later Ahnaf, or - better still - his own evidence. So you're a Muqallid of the Imams Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad in fatwa, but in evidence? No way. Over there, you're a deferential Muqallid of Mahbubi or Marghinani. Or better still: You're a Muqallid in the masa'il, but a self-proclaimed and self-appointed Mujtahid in the adillah. In Arabic, we called that مقلد في المسائل ومجتهد في الأدلة. A stupendous hybrid model. And it is exactly that. No need to sugarcoat it. Either way, such a person has no regard for researching what the actual arguments used by the Imams were. It's behaviour the some past nations would be proud of. Why wrestle with Mann and Salwa when you can enjoy cucumbers, lentils, and onions? There's no need for methodological consistency. There might be a hierarchy of masa'il in the school. That this hierarchical structure extends to the adillah of those masa'il as well is, well, an epistemological inconvenience. So, your proclivities to the Muta'akhkhirun and their evidence are noted. They are not open to scrutiny and debate. They are sacrosanct in your view. It is totally your right to exercise the privilege of bypassing the Imams' arguments entirely and sidelining their evidence in favour of what the later scholars wrote - or what you yourself think. Others who adopt those positions, however, might not consider themselves bound by your evidentiary philosophy for the school.

(وَسُئِلَ) - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى - عَنْ شَافِعِيٍّ يَحْرِصُ عَلَى صَبِيٍّ مُمَيِّزٍ فِي الْتِزَامِ مَذْهَبِ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُ وَالتَّمَسُّكِ بِهِ...؟ (فَأَجَابَ) نَفَعَنَا اللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى بِعُلُومِهِ بِقَوْلِهِ الشَّافِعِيُّ وَأَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَمَالِكٌ وَأَحْمَدُ وَسَائِرُ أَئِمَّةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ عَلَى هُدًى مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ فَجَزَاهُمْ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْ الْإِسْلَامِ وَالْمُسْلِمِينَ خَيْرَ الْجَزَاءِ وَأَكْمَلَهُ وَحَشَرَنَا فِي زُمْرَتِهِمْ وَإِذَا كَانُوا كُلُّهُمْ عَلَى هُدًى مِنْ اللَّهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى فَلَا حَرَجَ عَلَى مَنْ أَرْشَدَ غَيْرَهُ إلَى التَّمَسُّكِ بِأَيِّ مَذْهَبٍ مِنْ الْمَذَاهِبِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ وَإِنْ خَالَفَ مَذْهَبَهُ وَاعْتِقَادَهُ لِأَنَّهُ أَرْشَدَهُ إلَى حَقٍّ وَهُدًى... - Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiyyah

If you are a TS fanatic, don't read this section from this book, because: ولا تلقوا بأيديكم إلى التهلكة

How Should a Non-Specialist Navigate Scholarly Differences? - by Sh. Hatim al-Awni https://youtu.be/8494WxTM0lo?si=NubCzgRO5U5O8lWo This was another enjoyable session. I explore the author's views on the nature of scholarly differences, what makes a valid legal view, and several other topics of Usul. I hope you enjoy! 🙏 00:00 - An introduction to the author 04:42 - What is the book about? 09:30 - Scholarly differences are completely human 13:25 - Why do scholarly differences occur? 18:14 - What constitutes a 'valid' legal opinion? 25:10 - Guidelines of engaging with valid and invalid conclusions 30:26 - What does lack of moral integrity (fisq) actually mean? 34:40 - How should a non-specialist adopt a view when scholars differ? 46:20 - Suggesting topics for the book's theorisation in future editions 54:12 - Miscellaneous topics of Usul 59:50 - Q&A 01:05:30 - How were scholarly views adopted in the early centuries, and is talfiq permitted? 01:09:32 - Appeal to authority (taqlid) is natural and necessary

Today's live session will be on Sh. Hatim al-Awni's 'Ikhtilaf al-Muftin', a work on how non-specialists should navigate scholarly differences, and a ton of other topics on Usul. InSha'Allah we'll start at 7:30 PM (UK), which is an hour from now: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/5485476404?pwd=PkizdqUQqDFbyO6RFaxItK3kXyvTho.1

قَالَ بَعْضُ أَكَابِرِ أَئِمَّتِنَا إنَّ عَدَمَ مُحَابَاةِ الْعُلَمَاءِ بَعْضِهِمْ لِبَعْضٍ مِنْ أَعْظَمِ مَزَايَا هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ الَّتِي أَعْظَمَ اللَّهُ بِهَا عَلَيْهِمْ النِّعْمَةَ حَيْثُ حَفِظَهُمْ عَنْ وَصْمَةِ مُحَابَاةِ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابَيْنِ الْمُؤَدِّيَةِ إلَى تَحْرِيفِ مَا فِيهِمَا وَانْدِرَاسِ تَيْنِكَ الْمِلَّتَيْنِ فَلَمْ يَتْرُكُوا لِقَائِلٍ قَوْلًا فِيهِ أَدْنَيْ دَخَلٍ إلَّا بَيَّنُوهُ وَلَا لِفَاعِلٍ فِعْلًا فِيهِ تَحْرِيفٌ إلَّا قَوَّمُوهُ حَتَّى اتَّضَحَتْ الْآرَاءُ وَانْعَدَمَتْ الْأَهْوَاءُ وَدَامَتْ الشَّرِيعَةُ الْوَاضِحَةُ الْبَيْضَاءُ عَلَى امْتِلَاءِ الْآفَاقِ بِأَضْوَائِهَا وَشِفَاءِ الْقُلُوبِ بِهَا مِنْ أَدْوَائِهَا مَأْمُونَةً مِنْ كَيَدِ الْحَاسِدِينَ وَسَفَهِ الْمُلْحِدِينَ

One of our seniormost Imams said, "That the scholars showed no favoruitism to each other is from the greatest virtues of the people of this nation that Allah bestowed upon then. He protected them from stigma of favouritism that [was the hallmark of] the People of the Two Scriptures (Jews and Christians), which led to the distortion of their Scriptures and the decline of those two faith systems. [Our scholars] did not leave any person's statement containing even the slightest problem without exposing it, nor any person's action containing a distortion without correcting it. [They kept on doing this] until the positions became clarified, the predilections disappeared, and the radiant Shariah endured, filling the horizons with its light and healing hearts from any ailment, [all the while being] kept secure from the schemes of the jealous and the stupidity of the heretics.

- Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiyyah

وَأَمَّا مَا زَادَهُ ابْنُ دَقِيقِ الْعِيدِ فَبَعِيدٌ جِدًّا كَمَا قَالَهُ بَعْضُ الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ إذْ مَا مِنْ مَذْهَبٍ إلَّا وَهُوَ مُشْتَمِلٌ عَلَى مِثْلِ ذَلِكَ وَلَا يَخْفَى مَا فِيهِ مِنْ الْمَشَقَّةِ الْمُنَافِيَةِ لِلرُّخَصِ لِلْعَوَامِّ فِي تَقْلِيدِ مَنْ شَاءُوا وَمَا ذَكَرَهُ مِنْ التَّلَاعُبِ بِالدِّينِ مَمْنُوعٌ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَتَأَتَّى مَعَ فِعْلِ مَا خُيِّرَ فِيهِ شَرْعًا وَكَذَا دَعْوَاهُ اعْتِقَاد الْمُخَالفَةِ إذْ مَنْ قَلَّدَ الشَّافِعِيَّ وَاعْتَقَدَ أَرْجَحِيَّتَهُ يَرَى جَوَازَ تَقْلِيدِ الْحَنَفِيِّ بِنَاءً عَلَى جَوَازِ التَّخْيِيرِ وَعَدَمِ لُزُومِ التَّقْيِيدِ بِالرَّاجِحِ وَهُوَ الْأَصَحُّ فَمَتَى قَلَّدَهُ لَا يُقَالُ إنَّهُ أَقْدَمَ عَلَى مَا يَعْتَقِدُهُ مُخَالِفًا لِأَمْرِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى بَلْ مَا يَعْتَقِدُ مُوَافَقَتُهُ لَهُ وَفِي صَحِيحِ مُسْلِمٍ «الْإِثْمُ مَا حَاكَ فِي نَفْسِك وَكَرِهْت أَنْ يَطَّلِعَ عَلَيْهِ النَّاسُ» فَلَا دَلِيلَ فِيهِ وَمَعْنَى حَاكَ تَرَدَّدَ حَتَّى حَصَلَ فِي الْقَلْبِ شَكٌّ وَخَوْفُ كَوْنِهِ ذَنْبًا أَوْ رَسَخَ فِيهِ وَاسْتَقَرَّ كَوْنُهُ ذَنْبًا أَوْ خَرَجَ جَوَابًا لِفَطِنٍ حَاذِقِ الْفَهْمِ دُونَ ضَعِيفِ الْإِدْرَاكِ وَعَلَى كُلٍّ فَلَا دَلِيلَ فِيهِ I'm not translating that either. But here are some statements from him that I translated a while back:

As for according to the correct position – which is having an unrestricted choice [in choosing between scholars], and the permissibility of switching to any one of the reliable schools, even out of desire [i.e. for no particular religious reason], so long as he is not searching for dispensations… – he may switch to an opposing [ruling] by following [the Imām] who adopted it… despite having passed ruling [according to another opinion], so long as that does not result in a following mix-up that brings about the invalidity of the scenario by the combined legal positions of both schools.

- Al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā al-Fiqhiyyah, 4/289, Dār 'l-Fikr Beirut edition Elsewhere in the book, he said:

As for the position according to the correct view - which is a universal choice [between scholarly views] and the permissibility to switch to any one of the considered schools, even if it is out of desire, so long as one does not constantly follows dispensations; in fact even if he did this as has been previously stated - then that is something he may do.

He constantly fluctuated at the liberal end of the spectrum when it came to personal practice - sometimes disallowing Tafliq but on occasions viewing it to be valid; sometimes disallowing Tatabbu' 'l-Rukhas but allowing it on other occasions. As for Qada and Ifta, Haytami had another view, which was of strict adherence to the school. I'll tackle that in another post and explain why he adopted that view. There is no contradiction between this and that. For now, the issue of Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id is hopefully put to bed.

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. فَأَمَّا مَا كَانَ مَعَ الْمُفْتَى بِهِ دَلِيلٌ شَرْعِيٌّ فَالْوَاجِبُ عَلَى الْمُسْتَفْتِي الرُّجُوعُ إلَيْهِ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَنْشَرِحْ لَهُ صَدْرُهُ وَهَذَا كَالرُّخَصِ الشَّرْعِيَّةِ مِثْلُ الْفِطْرِ فِي السَّفَرِ وَالْمَرَضِ وَقَصْرِ الصَّلَاةِ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ مِمَّا لَا يَنْشَرِحُ بِهِ صَدْرُ كَثِيرٍ مِنْ الْجُهَّالِ فَهَذَا لَا عِبْرَةَ بِهِ، وَقَدْ كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَحْيَانَا يَأْمُرُ أَصْحَابَهُ بِمَا لَا يَنْشَرِحُ بِهِ صَدْرُ بَعْضِهِمْ فَيَمْتَنِعُونَ مِنْ فِعْلِهِ فَيَغْضَبُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ» كَمَا أَمَرَهُمْ بِفَسْخِ الْحَجِّ إلَى الْعُمْرَةِ فَكَرِهَهُ مَنْ كَرِهَهُ مِنْهُمْ وَكَمَا أَمَرَهُمْ بِنَحْرِ هَدْيِهِمْ وَالتَّحَلُّلِ مِنْ عُمْرَةِ الْحُدَيْبِيَةِ فَكَرِهُوهُ وَكَرِهُوا مُقَاضَاتَهُ لِقُرَيْشٍ عَلَى أَنْ يَرْجِعَ مِنْ عَامِهِ وَعَلَى أَنَّ مَنْ أَتَاهُ مِنْهُمْ يَرُدُّهُ إلَيْهِمْ. وَفِي الْجُمْلَةِ فَمَا وَرَدَ النَّصُّ بِهِ فَلَيْسَ لِلْمُؤْمِنِ إلَّا طَاعَةُ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ كَمَا قَالَ تَعَالَى {وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ} وَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَتَلَقَّى ذَلِكَ بِانْشِرَاحِ الصَّدْرِ وَالرِّضَا فَإِنَّ مَا شَرَعَهُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ يَجِبُ الرِّضَا وَالْإِيمَانُ بِهِ وَالتَّسْلِيمُ لَهُ كَمَا قَالَ تَعَالَى: {فَلا وَرَبِّكَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا} وَأَمَّا مَا لَيْسَ فِيهِ نَصٌّ عَنْ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَلَا عَمَّنْ يُقْتَدَى بِقَوْلِهِ مِنْ الصَّحَابَةِ وَسَلَفِ الْأُمَّةِ فَإِذَا وَقَعَ فِي نَفْسِ الْمُؤْمِنِ الْمُطْمَئِنِّ قَلْبُهُ بِالْإِيمَانِ الْمُنْشَرِحِ صَدْرُهُ بِنُورِ الْمَعْرِفَةِ وَالْيَقِينِ مِنْهُ شَيْءٌ، وَحَاكَ فِي صَدْرِهِ لِشُبْهَةٍ مَوْجُودَةٍ وَلَمْ يَجِدْ مَنْ يُفْتِي فِيهِ بِالرُّخْصَةِ إلَّا مَنْ يُخْبِرُ عَنْ رَأْيِهِ وَهُوَ مِمَّنْ لَا يُوثَقُ بِعِلْمِهِ وَبِدِينِهِ بَلْ هُوَ مَعْرُوفٌ بِاتِّبَاعِ الْهَوَى فَهُنَا يَرْجِعُ الْمُؤْمِنُ إلَى مَا حَاكَ فِي صَدْرِهِ، وَإِنْ أَفْتَاهُ هَؤُلَاءِ الْمَفْتُون وَقَدْ نَصَّ الْإِمَامُ أَحْمَدُ عَلَى مِثْلِ هَذَا اهـ. I'm not going to translate that. Scholars can read it in their own time. But even on the condition of 'not messing around', Ibn Hajar al-Haytami expressed disagreement with Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id. Haytami, a well-known enemy of Taqlid Shakhsi, was completely against mandating it in general practice for people. In disagreement with Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id, he said:

On Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id stipulating contentment with the view one is about to do Taqlid of, Ibn Amir Haj (d. 879 AH) of the Hanafis - the famous and loyal student of the great Ibn 'l-Humam (d. 861 AH) - records Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id's view in his al-Taqrir Wa 'l-Tahbir, which is the commentary on his teacher's al-Tahrir. Whereas he agrees with Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id that one should not believe he is messing around when taking from different schools and scholars, Ibn Amir Haj disagrees on the specific of having contentment: 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.

The third key source for Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id's views on Taqlid is Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) no less. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami has his own story with his outright hostility towards the notion of adherence to a school, which I'll share below. On Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id, he states in his al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiyyah: ثُمَّ شَرْطُ الِانْتِقَالِ أَنْ لَا يَعْمَلَ بِمَذْهَبٍ فِي وَاقِعَةٍ مَعَ بَقَائِهِ عَلَى تَقْلِيدِ إمَامٍ آخَرَ فِي تِلْكَ الْوَاقِعَةِ وَهُوَ يَرَى فِيهَا خِلَافَ مَا يُرِيدُ الْعَمَلَ بِهِ وَأَنْ يَكُونَ ذَلِكَ الْحُكْمُ مِمَّا يُنْقَضُ فِيهِ قَضَاءُ الْقَاضِي قَالَهُ ابْنُ عَبْدِ السَّلَامِ وَتَابَعَهُ عَلَيْهِ ابْنُ دَقِيقِ الْعِيدِ وَأَلْحَقَ بِمَا يُنْقَضُ مَا خَالَفَ ظَاهِرَ النَّصِّ بِحَيْثُ يَكُونُ التَّأْوِيلُ مُسْتَكْرَهًا وَزَادَ شَرْطَيْنِ آخَرَيْنِ كَمَا فِي الْخَادِمِ أَحَدُهُمَا أَنْ لَا تَجْتَمِعَ صُورَةٌ يَقَعُ الْإِجْمَاعُ عَلَى بُطْلَانِهَا كَمَا إذَا افْتَصَدَ وَمَسَّ الذَّكَرَ وَصَلَّى. الثَّانِي انْشِرَاحُ صَدْرِهِ لِلتَّقْلِيدِ وَعَدَمُ اعْتِقَادِهِ لِكَوْنِهِ مُتَلَاعِبًا بِالدِّينِ لِحَدِيثِ: «الْإِثْمُ مَا حَاكَ فِي نَفْسِك» قَالَ بَلْ أَقُولُ إنَّ هَذَا شَرْطُ جَمِيعِ التَّكَالِيفِ وَهُوَ أَنْ لَا يُقْدِمَ إنْسَانٌ عَلَى مَا يَعْتَقِدُهُ مُخَالِفًا لِأَمْرِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ This neatly matches what Subki and Zarkashi recorded. His view is then also recorded later on, like in the multiple Taqlid treatises written by Samhudi (d. 911 AH) and those after him. In all instances, his view is presented as his view, and is not universalised. It was his personal Ijtihad that led him to add precautionary stipulations when switching schools. In no way is his view representative of anybody else - except those who explicitly agreed with him. The fact remains that he was opposed to what we woud nowadays call Taqlid Shakhsi. And if someone says "Well he lived in his 7th century", they don't have a clue about improper practices that were prevalent in 7th century Egypt. Remember, even during the time of his teacher, there were multiple brothels, alcohol bars, corrupt officials, mismanagement of slaves, all in and around Cairo, not to mention the bloody events surrounding the fall of the Ayyubids and the rise of the Mamluks. Yes Ibn Abd 'l-Salam was around, but this wasn't the some Umari caliphate. It should be noted in conclusion that Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id's stipulation of confidence and not playing around, is his personal view. His view was later on adopted by Taqi al-Subki and others, who stipulated that when following any scholar or school, one should believe that it is the best school/opinion to be followed, or that one is following the best available option. For others, there is no condition for contentment in the heart, or even having a feeling that one is messing around with the religion. It is a subjective issue The only stipulation that works in this regard which reduces that subjectivity - as Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) sets out in his answer to his student Abu Hafs al-Bazzar (d. 749 AH) - is that he can follow any scholar as long as he is not certain that the scholar has absolutely erred - the quote is from the latter's al-A'lam al-Aliyyah Fi Manaqib Ibn Taymiyyah: والتمست مِنْهُ تأليف نَص فِي الْفِقْه يجمع اختياراته وترجيحاته ليَكُون عُمْدَة فِي الإفتاء، فَقَالَ لي مَا مَعْنَاهُ: الفروع أمرها قريب، فإذا قلّد المسلم فيها أحدَ العلماء المقلَّدين جاز له العمل بقوله ما لم يتيقن خطأه

I asked him to compile a work in Fiqh that would gather his chosen views and preferences, so that it becomes a primer in Ifta. He said to me in effect, "The matter of the subsidiaries is quite relaxed. When a Muslim follows any one of the followed scholars therein, it would be permitted for him to act upon his statement - as long as he does not believe he erred.

See next post for those who directly disagree with Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id on the conditions. I'll only mention those who mentioned Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id by name. Otherwise, there are a ton of scholars who did not adopt the additional Taqlid stipulations laid out by him.

It is therefore clear that Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id allowed switching schools in individual issues with the conditions he laid out 1. No Talfiq shoudlk occur that leads to consensus violation 2. It should not be an opinion that is severely weak that would be overturned in court 3. The heart should be content with the view about to be practised, and that one should not believe he is messing around with the religion in doing so. Had he been of the view of adhering to a school as an absolute obligation, Zarkashi would have mentioned him in the first view, alongside Jili. He did not do any such thing. In fact, in the history of the Shafi'i School, nobody ever associated Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id with we we nowadays would deem as Taqlid Shakhsi as an obligation. The nutjob won't mind with the facts though and will continue associated Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id with his golden calf that is Taqlid Shakhsi. Zarkashi then goes on to discuss this and other related issues on Taqlid. His entire discourse is peppered with views that would land your standard Taqlid Shakhsi fanatic into a highly uncomfortable position, leading to many sleepless nights. I would recommend any student in any seminary in those years to read it so they aren't shocked by it later on in life. It's pretty mainstream Usul talk. On the seven views offered above, the reality is that if every nuance and difference from every scholar who spoke on Taqlid is collated, the number of opinions in this issue can easily reach dozens. What Zarkashi offered is a very brief snapshot of the diversity of views in Taqlid and adherence to one school.

The second source is Badr 'l-Din al-Zarkashi (d. 794 AH) and his al-Bahr al-Muhit, a masterpiece of writing in Usul 'l-Fiqh. The issue under discussion in the book is as follows: مَسْأَلَةٌ: فَلَوْ الْتَزَمَ مَذْهَبًا مُعَيَّنًا، كَمَالِكٍ وَالشَّافِعِيِّ، وَاعْتَقَدَ رُجْحَانَهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ الْإِجْمَالُ فَهَلْ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يُخَالِفَ إمَامَهُ فِي بَعْضِ الْمَسَائِلِ وَيَأْخُذَ بِقَوْلِ غَيْرِهِ مِنْ مُجْتَهِدٍ آخَرَ؟ فِيهِ مَذَاهِبُ

Question: If he adheres to a specific school, like [the school of] Malik or Shafi'i, and he believed it is generally the strongest, can he go against his Imam in some issues and take the position of another Mujtahid? There are a number of positions in this.

Let's pause here for a moment. Even posing the question should be sacriliege according to the Taqlid Shakhi fanatic. Let that sink in. The fact that it was entertained proves that there is nothing abnormal about having this discussion. In fact, the only fringe here is the one that wants to shut down any debate on this issue and intimidate others. Maybe the memo didn't get through but the days of intimidation died a painful death 15 years ago. This isn't the 1990s or 2000s. After posing the question, Zarkashi mentions SEVEN opinions no less. Here are the headlines of all seven: أَحَدُهَا الْمَنْعُ، وَبِهِ جَزَمَ الْجِيلِيُّ فِي الْإِعْجَازِ، لِأَنَّ قَوْلَ كُلِّ إمَامٍ مُسْتَقِلٌّ بِآحَادِ الْوَقَائِعِ، فَلَا ضَرُورَةَ إلَى الِانْتِقَالِ إلَّا التَّشَهِّيَ، وَلِمَا فِيهِ مِنْ اتِّبَاعِ التَّرَخُّصِ وَالتَّلَاعُبِ بِالدِّينِ This is the only view that comes anywhere near the position espoused by the fanatic. It is ONE opinion. Zarkashi attributes it to Jili, who is an obscure figure and is not exactly known; it was someone probably someone who lived in the 6th century AH. There are a number of scholars by that name in Ibn 'l-Subki's Tabaqat. وَالثَّانِي: يَجُوزُ، وَهُوَ الْأَصَحُّ فِي الرَّافِعِيِّ This second opinion attracted a lot of detail, which can be found in the book and I have removed for brevity. Basically, it states that it is permitted to switch schools in individual issues. وَالثَّالِثُ أَنَّهُ كَالْعَامِّيِّ الَّذِي لَمْ يَلْتَزِمْ مَذْهَبًا مُعَيَّنًا، فَكُلُّ مَسْأَلَةٍ عَمِلَ فِيهَا بِقَوْلِ إمَامِهِ لَيْسَ لَهُ تَقْلِيدُ غَيْرِهِ، وَكُلُّ مَسْأَلَةٍ لَمْ يَعْمَلْ فِيهَا بِقَوْلِهِ فَلَا مَانِعَ فِيهَا مِنْ تَقْلِيدِ غَيْرِهِ No name was given to this view. وَالرَّابِعُ: إنْ كَانَ قَبْلَ حُدُوثِ الْحَوَادِثِ فَلَا يَجِبُ التَّخْصِيصُ بِمَذْهَبٍ، وَإِنْ حَدَثَ وَقَلَّدَ إمَامًا فِي حَادِثَةٍ وَجَبَ عَلَيْهِ تَقْلِيدُهُ فِي الْحَوَادِثِ الَّتِي يُتَوَقَّعُ وُقُوعُهَا فِي حَقِّهِ، وَاخْتَارَهُ إمَامُ الْحَرَمَيْنِ This view is ascribed to Juwayni. وَالْخَامِسُ: إنْ غَلَبَ عَلَى ظَنِّهِ أَنَّ بَعْضَ الْمَسَائِلِ عَلَى مَذْهَبِ غَيْرِ مُقَلَّدِهِ أَقْوَى مِنْ مُقَلَّدِهِ جَازَ، قَالَهُ الْقُدُورِيُّ الْحَنَفِيُّ Another view, this one is ascribed to Quduri. وَالسَّادِسُ وَاخْتَارَهُ ابْنُ عَبْدِ السَّلَامِ فِي الْقَوَاعِدِ التَّفْصِيلُ بَيْنَ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْمَذْهَبُ الَّذِي أَرَادَ الِانْتِقَالَ عَنْهُ بِمَا يَنْقُضُ الْحُكْمَ أَوْ لَا This was the view of Ibn Abd 'l-Salam, as discussed previously. Finally, we get to Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id's view, which is the seventh: وَالسَّابِعُ وَاخْتَارَهُ ابْنُ دَقِيقِ الْعِيدِ الْجَوَازُ بِشُرُوطٍ: أَحَدُهَا أَنْ لَا يَجْتَمِعَ فِي صُورَةٍ يَقَعُ الْإِجْمَاعُ عَلَى بُطْلَانِهَا، كَمَا إذَا افْتَصَدَ وَمَسَّ الذَّكَرَ وَصَلَّى، وَالثَّانِي أَلَّا يَكُونَ مَا قَلَّدَ فِيهِ مِمَّا يُنْقَضُ فِيهِ الْحُكْمُ لَوْ وَقَعَ بِهِ، وَالثَّالِثُ انْشِرَاحُ صَدْرِهِ لِلتَّقْلِيدِ الْمَذْكُورِ وَعَدَمُ اعْتِقَادِهِ لِكَوْنِهِ مُتَلَاعِبًا بِالدِّينِ مُتَسَاهِلًا فِيهِ.، وَدَلِيلُ اعْتِبَارِ هَذَا الشَّرْطِ قَوْلُهُ: وَالْإِثْمُ مَا حَاكَ فِي نَفْسِك، فَهَذَا تَصْرِيحٌ بِأَنَّ مَا حَاكَ فِي نَفْسِك فَفِعْلُهُ إثْمٌ.

The first source is Taqi al-Subki (d. 756 AH). In his السيف المسلول على من سب الرسول, he records the following: ولقد استحسنت فتيا من الشيخ أبي الفتح محمد بن علي بن وهب القشيري المعروف بابن دقيق العيد رأيتها بخطه، سئل عن تقليد المذاهب هل يجوز وما ضابطه؟ فكتب: "الضابط عندي شيئان، أحدهما أن لا يكون في المسألة التي يريد أن يقلد فيها حديث صحيح يقتضي خلاف مذهب من يقلده، والثاني أن ينشرح صدره لذلك ولا يعتقد أنه متساهل في دينه، وإنما اعتبرت هذا لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم الإثم ما حاك في نفسك، فإذا لم يكن في المسألة نص وكان الشخص كما ذكرنا منشرح الصدر جاز التقليد لمن شاء، والله أعلم". نقلته من خطه.

I like the edict from Shaykh Abu 'l-Fath Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Wahb al-Qushayri, known as Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id, which I saw in his handwriting. He was queried about following the schools: is it permitted, and what is the governing principle for that? He wrote: "According to me, the governing principle is two things. The first is that there should not be an authentic hadith that works against the school of the one he wants to follow, in the issue which he wants to observe taqlid. The second is that his heart should be content with that view, and that he does not believe he is being lax with his religion. The reason I have taking this into consideration is beacuse of the statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم: 'Sin is that which impacts your heart (i.e., it feels wrong).' But if there is no explicit text on the issue and the person is content [with that view] as we mentioned, then following (taqlid) of whomever he likes is permitted. And Allah knows better." I copied this from his writing.

For transparency, the final sentence can also be translated as: ...then following (taqlid [of any school or scholar]) is permitted for anyone [of this description]. Either way, the meaning is not impacted and the net result is the same: He allowed taking an opinion outside one's default school as long as the conditions he laid out were met. This was his view. There is no indication here that he mandated following a single school in all circumstances. The condition of having contentment in the heart has shades in his teacher's writings - Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id fleshed it out and provided a basis for it from the Hadith. However, it cannot be said that he concurred 100% with what Ibn Abd 'l-Salam said. This will become clearer in the next quote, where Zarkashi places them in different boxes.

Series of posts on Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id and his view on adherence to a single Madhhab in all its rulings Following on from the above series of posts on Ibn Abd 'l-Salam, the question now is: What was the view of Ibn Abd 'l-Salam's student, Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id (d. 702 AH), on the obligation / non-obligation of adherence to a school? And is there any divergence between teacher and student? The calibre of Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id is not to be understated. After all, he is referred to as المجتهد المطلق by Ibn 'l-Subki in his Tabaqat: مُحَمَّد بن عَليّ بن وهب بن مُطِيع بن أبي الطَّاعَة الْقشيرِي أَبُو الْفَتْح تَقِيّ الدّين ولد الشَّيْخ الإِمَام الْقدْوَة مجد الدّين بن دَقِيق الْعِيد الشَّيْخ الإِمَام شيخ الْإِسْلَام الْحَافِظ الزَّاهِد الْوَرع الناسك الْمُجْتَهد الْمُطلق ذُو الْخِبْرَة التَّامَّة بعلوم الشَّرِيعَة الْجَامِع بَين الْعلم وَالدّين والسالك سَبِيل السَّادة الأقدمين أكمل الْمُتَأَخِّرين وبحر الْعلم الَّذِي لَا تكدره الدلاء ومعدن الْفضل الَّذِي لقاصده مِنْهُ مَا يَشَاء وَإِمَام الْمُتَأَخِّرين كلمة لَا يجحدونها وَشَهَادَة على أنفسهم يؤدونها مَعَ وقار عَلَيْهِ سِيمَا الْجلَال وهيبة لَا يقوم الضرغام عِنْدهَا لنزال هَذَا مَعَ مَا أضيف إِلَيْهِ من أدب أزهى من الأزهار وألعب بالعقول لَا أَدْرِي بَين يَدي هَذَا الشَّيْخ مَا أَقُول أسْتَغْفر الله من الْعقار His position requires a data collection process. We have secondary sources that speak about this. Unfortunately, I don't have access to primary source (i.e., his own works), for the source carrying this particular statement is either in manuscript or is lost. There is also a third possibility - it would seem from the Subki quote below - which is that it was a letter or a private correspondence. (After writing the paragraph above, I noted in Zarkashi's Khadim 'l-Rafi'i Wa 'l-Rawdah that Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id's position on the topic of adherence to a school being obligatory (or lack thereof) is stated in his book Sharh 'l-Unwan, which is unfortunately a lost commentary on the Usul text written by the relativeluy obscure scholar by the name of Mutarrizi. Fortunately, Zarkashi preserved Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id's position on teh topic in Khadim. However, this might raise another question, which is that the commentary by Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id was an oral commentary (imla') - essentially lessons - as suggested by Ibn 'l-Subki in his entry in Tabaqat. It is possible that he wrote something down after his lessons, but it never received wider circulation, and that the only preserved commentary - for however long it was syndicated - was his orally delivered notes.) There are three secondary Shafi'i sources at hand that speak about Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id's position on the issue. From the outset, we can conclude that they accurately represent Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id as they are all fairly well aligned with each other.

وَمن تصانيف الشَّيْخ عز الدّين الْقَوَاعِد الْكُبْرَى وَكتاب مجَاز الْقُرْآن وَهَذَانِ الكتابان شَاهِدَانِ بإمامته وعظيم مَنْزِلَته فِي عُلُوم الشَّرِيعَة وَاخْتصرَ الْقَوَاعِد الْكُبْرَى فِي قَوَاعِد صغرى وَالْمجَاز فِي آخر وَله كتاب شَجَرَة المعارف حسن جدا وَكتاب الدَّلَائِل الْمُتَعَلّقَة بِالْمَلَائِكَةِ والنبيين عَلَيْهِم السَّلَام والخلق أَجْمَعِينَ بديع جدا وَالتَّفْسِير مُجَلد مُخْتَصر والغاية فِي اخْتِصَار النِّهَايَة دلّت على قدره ومختصر صَحِيح مُسلم ومختصر رِعَايَة المحاسبي وَالْإِمَام فِي أَدِلَّة الْأَحْكَام وَبَيَان أَحْوَال النَّاس يَوْم الْقِيَامَة وبداية السول فِي تَفْضِيل الرَّسُول صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم والْفرق بَين الْإِيمَان وَالْإِسْلَام وفَوَائِد الْبلوى والمحن والْجمع بَين الْحَاوِي وَالنِّهَايَة وَمَا أَظُنهُ كمل والْفَتَاوَى الموصلية والفتاوى المصرية مَجْمُوع مُشْتَمل على فنون من الْمسَائِل الْفَوَائِد Al-Fatawa al-Masriyyah is the same work that was cited in the posts above, as is al-Qawa'id al-Kubra, one of the most significant and original works of that period. May Allah have mercy on him. ___ The claim therefore that he held fringe views on taqlid, or that the Shafi'i School rejected him on this issue (while simultaneously holding that no one within the school seriously challenged him), or that his own student Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id turned 180 degrees against his teacher, is not just false. It reflects a level of confusion that does not merit serious consideration.

This is how Ibn 'l-Subki introduces Ibn Abd 'l-Salam in his Tabaqat al-Shafi'iyyah al-Kubra: عبد العزيز بن عبد السلام بن ابي القاسم بن حسن بن محمد ابن مهذب السلمي شيخ الإسلام والمسلمين وأحد الأئمة الأعلام سلطان العلماء إمام عصره بلا مدافعة القائم بالأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر في زمانه المطلع على حقائق الشريعة وغوامضها العارف بمقاصدها لم ير مثل نفسه ولا رآى من رآه مثله علما وورعا وقياما في الحق وشجاعة وقوة جنان وسلاطة لسان Ibn Abd 'l-Salam's student, Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id, conferred on him the titles Izz al-Din and Sultan al-Ulama. He did not come from a lineage of scholarship or a prestigious family. Rather, he carved out his own niche. Far from being some minor voice, but a master of the Shafi'i School and a leader. He's the type that other schools would gladly welcome into their own with open arms - and seat him right at the top from day one. In Damascus, he dismantled entrenched innovations that had persisted for a century, even when it meant clashing with his coeval and contemporary Shafi'i, the formidable Ibn al-Salah, who himself needs no introduction. Challenging an entrenched status quo is not an easy feat. When the Ayyubid emir handed Sayda (Sidon, Lebanon) to the Crusaders due to political expediency, Ibn Abd 'l-Salam denounced him from the pulpits and refused to supplicate for him in Friday sermons. His reward was imprisonment. Upon release, he left for Egypt, along with his close companion Ibn 'l-Hajib, the Maliki jurist who would go so far as to rank Ibn Abd 'l-Salam above Ghazali in their mastery over the law. Ironically, he, as an ethnic Kurd, was Maliki, whereas Ibn Abd 'l-Salam, an ethnic Maghribi, was Shafi'i. The very moment he landed in Egypt, he was put in positions of authority: Imam, Khatib, judge, and the first head-teacher of al-Madrasah al-Salihiyyah when it was built. Mundhiri no less - the famous author of al-Targhib wa 'l-Tarhib - stepped back from issuing fatwa once Ibn Abd 'l-Salam arrived in Cairo. When Ibn Abd 'l-Salam erred in a ruling, he did not obscure it or shy away from correcting himself. He sent announcers across Cairo that he was wrong and must not be followed. He commanded the ear of the Sultan of Egypt and used it to devastatingly positive effect. Longstanding shops of alcohol that were built during the post-Salah 'l-Din period were shut down at his insistence. During the imminent Tatar threat, he issued socially just and principled rulings: wealth would first be taken from the elite before burdening the public with general taxation policies. His successful steering of the public and the government led to the Tatars being defeated at Ain Jalut, by which time he was very old. But he lived long enough to see the fruits of his fatwas and his guidance of the Muslims, passing away just two years later. Even political power deferred to him. The Mamluk ruler Baybars withheld giving allegiance until Ibn Abd 'l-Salam gave his. And when the latter died during the reign of Baybars, he admitted that he had finally become secure in his sultanate, as the weight of a single word of disapproval from Ibn Abd 'l-Salam could have ended the rule of any Muslim leader at the time. In effect, he was a one-man walking veto on the legitimacy of rulers. Ibn Abd 'l-Salam embodied a rare synthesis: establishment-style authority coupled with uncompromising personal independence. He emerged with his reputation not dented in any way (unlike many other great scholars before and after him), but enhanced. He was also at the sharp end of theological disputes, including with some Hanbalis who accused him of deviation over the harf-sawt issue, and accused him of being an "Ash'ari". He responded by authoring his well-known treatise in Aqidah, which Ibn 'k-Subki records in full in his Tabaqat. Yet when asked when Salam should be offered to these Hanbalis, Ibn Abd 'l-Salam still ruled that they should, as per his Fatawa. On his works, Ibn 'l-Subki writes:

In his القواعد الكبرى, Izz ibn Abd 'l-Salam offers the following analysis on following another Imam in an individual issue: ومن قلد إماما من الأئمة ثم أراد تقليد غيره فهل له ذلك؟ فيه خلاف، والمختار التفصيل، فإن كان المذهب الذي أراد الانتقال إليه مما ينقض فيه الحكم، فليس له الانتقال إلى حكم يجب نقضه فإنه لم يجب نقضه إلا لبطلانه، فإن كان المأخذان متقاربين جاز التقليد والانتقال لأن الناس لم يزالوا من زمن الصحابة إلى أن ظهرت المذاهب الأربعة يقلدون من اتفق من العلماء من غير نكير من أحد يعتبر إنكاره، ولو كان ذلك باطلا لأنكروه، وكذلك لا يجب تقليد الأفضل وإن كان هو الأولى، لأنه لو وجب تقليده لما قلد الناس الفاضل والمفضول في زمن الصحابة والتابعين من غير نكير، بل كانوا مسترسلين في تقليد الفاضل والأفضل، ولم يكن الأفضل يدعو الكل إلى تقليد نفسه، ولا المفضول يمنع من سأله عن وجود الفاضل، وهذا مما لا يرتاب فيه عاقل

If someone follows one out of the Imams, then he wishes to follow another, can he do that? There is a disagreement in this. The preferred position is to draw a distinction: 1. If the position he wishes to switch to is from those [views] in which a court order would be overturned, he may not switch to such a view, as the only reason it must be overturned is because of its invalidity. 2. If the pair of evidence sources are close to each other [in strength], then following and switching would be permitted: from the time of the Companions until the emergence of the Four Schools, people continued to follow whichever scholar happed to be there without objection from anybody worthwhile. Had this [practice] been invalid, they would have condemned it. Likewise, it is not mandatory to follow the superior scholar (even though that is preferable): had following him been an obligation, people would not have followed both the superior scholar and the lesser scholar during the era of the Companions and the Tabi'un without facing objection. Rather, they freely followed both the more superior scholar and the lesser scholar. The superior scholar did not call everyone to follow him exclusively, nor did the lesser scholar prevent the oen who submitted a question to him to seek the superior. This is something in which no rational person would have any doubt.