Fatwa ID: 08873
Answered by: Mufti Sheik Abdel Ahaad Imrit
Question:
Does anyone have a detailed fatwa on iqtida of imam against one’s own madhab?
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Answer:
The General Principle is that “If it is certain that the fundamentals are observed, then it is not disliked (makrūh), refers specifically to the observing of the farā’iḍ (obligatory elements) including conditions and essential integrals in that specific ṣalāh (prayer). This ruling applies even if the wājibāt (necessary acts) and sunan (recommended practices) are not upheld.
- View from Sharḥ al-Munya:
The commentary in Sharḥ al-Munya also supports this stance, stating:
“As for following someone who differs in subsidiary legal matters (furūʿ), such as a Shāfiʿī imām, then doing so is permissible as long as it is not known that he is doing something which invalidates the prayer according to the follower’s school and upon which there is consensus. The only difference of opinion concerns whether it is disliked (makrūh) or not.”
Thus, the ruling is conditional upon the absence of any invalidating factors according to the follower’s own madhhab. If such invalidation is confirmed, then following him is not permissible.
- View from Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī (al-Ihtidāʾ fī al-Iqtidāʾ):
He states:
“The majority of our scholars have permitted following an imām of a different madhhab if he exercises caution (iḥtiyāṭ) in matters of disagreement. If he does not exercise such caution, then it is not permissible.”
Implication: A cautious imām who is aware of the disagreements and avoids what could invalidate the prayer across madhāhib may be followed without karāhah (dislike). But if there is no such awareness or precaution, karāhah applies, though permissibility remains.
- Which Issues Matter for Caution:
The neglected matters where caution must be exercised include:
- Performing wuḍū’ after cupping (faṣd),
- After bloodletting (ḥijāmah),
- After vomiting (qay’),
- Nosebleeds (ruʿāf), etc.
These matters are obligations in some madhāhib and not in others. Therefore, ignoring them could mean invalid prayer in one school while valid in another.
However, differences such as:
- Raising the hands during movement (rafʿ al-yadayn),
- Audibly or silently reciting the basmalah (bismillāh),
are not invalidating; they are only preferred or discouraged. These do not affect the core validity of prayer, so every individual may follow his madhhab in such matters without blame.
- View from al-Khayr al-Ramlī (Ḥāshiyat al-Ashbāh):
He writes:
“My heart inclines to the view that there is no dislike (karāhah) in following a differing imām if it is not confirmed that he is doing anything invalidating.”
- Further Clarification by the Commentator:
He elaborates:
- If the follower knows that the imām is observing the farā’iḍ, wājibāt, and sunan, there is no karāhah.
- If the follower knows that the imām neglects all three, the prayer is invalid.
- If the follower does not know either way, karāhah applies since the imām might perform acts that are invalid in one school and acceptable in another.
- If he neglects only wājibāt and sunan, karāhah should still apply.
- If he only neglects sunan, following him is still better because jamāʿah (congregational prayer) is obligatory and outweighs the dislike.
- View of al-ʿAllāmah al-Bīrī:
He claimed that praying alone is superior to following an imām from another madhhab because such an imām may do acts that require repetition or are discouraged in the follower’s school.
However, other scholars have refuted this view in separate treatises and supported the contrary that following the differing imām is valid and in some cases better than praying alone.
- View from al-Ramlī al-Shāfiʿī:
Quoted by Shaykh Khayr al-Dīn, al-Ramlī al-Shāfiʿī said:
“Following a differing imām (when another option is available) is disliked. However, doing so is still better than praying alone. One still obtains the reward of jamāʿah.”
This was the fatwā of al-Ramlī al-Kabīr, supported by al-Subkī, al-Isnawī, and others.
- Summary by Shaykh Khayr al-Dīn:
He concludes:
“There is ikhtilāf (difference of opinion) among the scholars on this. Whatever reasons the other madhāhib have for following or not following Ḥanafī imāms we can apply the same rationale for or against following them. We have already heard what al-Ramlī has relied upon and issued fatwā with, and I (the poor one) also say the same in regard to a Ḥanafī following a Shāfiʿī imām. A just jurist will accept this.”
He adds in poetry:
“I am a Ramlī in Ḥanafī fiqh… and there is no debate after the agreement of the two Ramlīs.”
Meaning: There is no room for dispute after both Ramlīs one from each school have agreed on the permissibility.
Conclusion:
The net result is:
- If a Ḥanafī follower knows that the Shāfiʿī imām observes all obligatory elements (farā’iḍ), then following him is not disliked.
- If one is unsure, then following such an imām is permissible but disliked.
- If one knows that the imām neglects essentials that would invalidate the prayer in the follower’s madhhab, then it is not permissible to follow him.
- Despite differences, following a cautious imām from another madhhab is better than praying alone, if no suitable alternative is available.
- However, following an imām of the same madhhab remains preferable when possible.
One may consulte Risalah – Iqtida Bi Al-Shafi’iyya by Shaykh Ali Sindhi, Makhtuut and Imdad Al-Ahkam, vol 1, pg 591, Maktaba Darul Uloom Karachi)
References:
«حاشية ابن عابدين = رد المحتار ط الحلبي» (1/ 563):
«(قَوْلُهُ إنْ تَيَقَّنَ الْمُرَاعَاةَ لَمْ يُكْرَهْ إلَخْ) أَيْ الْمُرَاعَاةُ فِي الْفَرَائِضِ مِنْ شُرُوطٍ وَأَرْكَانٍ فِي تِلْكَ الصَّلَاةِ وَإِنْ لَمْ يُرَاعِ الْوَاجِبَاتِ وَالسُّنَنَ كَمَا هُوَ ظَاهِرُ سِيَاقِ كَلَامِ الْبَحْرِ. مَطْلَبٌ فِي الِاقْتِدَاءِ بِشَافِعِيٍّ وَنَحْوِهِ هَلْ يُكْرَهُ أَمْ لَا؟
وَظَاهِرُ كَلَامِ شَرْحِ الْمُنْيَةِ أَيْضًا حَيْثُ قَالَ: وَأَمَّا الِاقْتِدَاءُ بِالْمُخَالِفِ فِي الْفُرُوعِ كَالشَّافِعِيِّ فَيَجُوزُ مَا لَمْ يُعْلَمْ مِنْهُ مَا يُفْسِدُ الصَّلَاةَ عَلَى اعْتِقَادِ الْمُقْتَدِي عَلَيْهِ الْإِجْمَاعُ، إنَّمَا اُخْتُلِفَ فِي الْكَرَاهَةِ. اهـ فَقَيَّدَ بِالْمُفْسِدِ دُونَ غَيْرِهِ كَمَا تَرَى. وَفِي رِسَالَةِ [الِاهْتِدَاءِ فِي الِاقْتِدَاءِ] لِمُنْلَا عَلِيٍّ الْقَارِئُ: ذَهَبَ عَامَّةُ مَشَايِخِنَا إلَى الْجَوَازِ إذَا كَانَ يُحْتَاطُ فِي مَوْضِعِ الْخِلَافِ وَإِلَّا فَلَا.
وَالْمَعْنَى أَنَّهُ يَجُوزُ فِي الْمُرَاعِي بِلَا كَرَاهَةٍ وَفِي غَيْرِهِ مَعَهَا. ثُمَّ الْمَوَاضِعُ الْمُهْمَلَةُ لِلْمُرَاعَاةِ أَنْ يَتَوَضَّأَ مِنْ الْفَصْدِ وَالْحِجَامَةِ وَالْقَيْءِ وَالرُّعَافِ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ، لَا فِيمَا هُوَ سُنَّةٌ عِنْدَهُ مَكْرُوهٌ عِنْدَنَا؛ كَرَفْعِ الْيَدَيْنِ فِي الِانْتِقَالَاتِ، وَجَهْرِ الْبَسْمَلَةِ وَإِخْفَائِهَا، فَهَذَا وَأَمْثَالُهُ لَا يُمْكِنُ فِيهِ الْخُرُوجُ عَنْ عُهْدَةِ الْخِلَافِ، فَكُلُّهُمْ يَتَّبِعُ مَذْهَبَهُ وَلَا يُمْنَعُ مَشْرَبَهُ اهـ.
وَفِي حَاشِيَةِ الْأَشْبَاهِ لِلْخَيْرِ الرَّمْلِيِّ: الَّذِي يَمِيلُ إلَيْهِ خَاطِرِي الْقَوْلُ بِعَدَمِ الْكَرَاهَةِ، إذَا لَمْ يَتَحَقَّقْ مِنْهُ مُفْسِدٌ. اهـ.
وَبَحَثَ الْمُحَشِّي أَنَّهُ إنْ عَلِمَ أَنَّهُ رَاعَى فِي الْفُرُوضِ وَالْوَاجِبَاتِ وَالسُّنَنِ فَلَا كَرَاهَةَ، وَإِنْ عَلِمَ تَرْكَهَا فِي الثَّلَاثَةِ لَمْ يَصِحَّ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَدْرِ شَيْئًا كُرِهَ لِأَنَّ بَعْضَ مَا يَجِبُ تَرْكُهُ عِنْدَنَا يُسَنُّ فِعْلُهُ عِنْدَهُ فَالظَّاهِرُ أَنْ يَفْعَلَهُ، وَإِنْ عَلِمَ تَرْكَهَا فِي الْأَخِيرَيْنِ فَقَطْ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُكْرَهَ لِأَنَّهُ إذَا كُرِهَ عِنْدَ احْتِمَالِ تَرْكِ الْوَاجِبِ فَعِنْدَ تَحَقُّقِهِ بِالْأَوْلَى، وَإِنْ عَلِمَ تَرْكَهَا فِي الثَّالِثِ فَقَطْ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَقْتَدِيَ بِهِ لِأَنَّ الْجَمَاعَةَ وَاجِبَةٌ فَتُقَدَّمُ عَلَى تَرْكِهِ كَرَاهَةَ التَّنْزِيهِ اهـ وَسَبَقَهُ إلَى نَحْوِ ذَلِكَ الْعَلَّامَةُ الْبِيرِيُّ فِي رِسَالَتِهِ، حَيْثُ ادَّعَى أَنَّ الِانْفِرَادَ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ الِاقْتِدَاءِ بِهِ قَالَ: إذْ لَا رَيْبَ أَنَّهُ يَأْتِي فِي صَلَاتِهِ بِمَا تَجِبُ الْإِعَادَةُ بِهِ عِنْدَنَا أَوْ تُسْتَحَبُّ، لَكِنْ رَدَّ عَلَيْهِ ذَلِكَ غَيْرُهُ فِي رِسَالَةٍ أَيْضًا، وَقَدْ أَسْمَعْنَاك مَا يُؤَيِّدُ الرَّدَّ، نَعَمْ نَقَلَ الشَّيْخُ خَيْرُ الدِّينِ عَنْ الرَّمْلِيِّ الشَّافِعِيِّ أَنَّهُ مَشَى عَلَى كَرَاهَةِ الِاقْتِدَاءِ بِالْمُخَالِفِ حَيْثُ أَمْكَنَهُ غَيْرُهُ، وَمَعَ ذَلِكَ هِيَ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ الِانْفِرَادِ، وَيَحْصُلُ لَهُ فَضْلُ الْجَمَاعَةِ، وَبِهِ أَفْتَى الرَّمْلِيُّ الْكَبِيرُ، وَاعْتَمَدَهُ السُّبْكِيُّ وَالْإِسْنَوِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُمَا.
قَالَ الشَّيْخُ خَيْرُ الدِّينِ: وَالْحَاصِلُ أَنَّ عِنْدَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ اخْتِلَافًا، وَكُلُّ مَا كَانَ لَهُمْ عِلَّةٌ فِي الِاقْتِدَاءِ بِنَا صِحَّةً وَفَسَادًا وَأَفْضَلِيَّةً كَانَ لَنَا مِثْلُهُ عَلَيْهِمْ، وَقَدْ سَمِعْت مَا اعْتَمَدَهُ الرَّمْلِيُّ وَأَفْتَى بِهِ، وَالْفَقِيرُ أَقُولُ مِثْلَ قَوْلِهِ فِيمَا يَتَعَلَّقُ بِاقْتِدَاءِ الْحَنَفِيِّ بِالشَّافِعِيِّ وَالْفَقِيهُ الْمُنْصِفُ يُسَلِّمُ ذَلِكَ:
وَأَنَا رَمْلِيُّ فِقْهُ الْحَنَفِيِّ … لَا مِرَا بَعْدَ اتِّفَاقِ الْعَالِمَيْنِ
اهـ مُلَخَّصًا أَيْ لَا جِدَالَ بَعْدَ اتِّفَاقِ عَالِمَيْ الْمَذْهَبَيْنِ وَهُمَا رَمْلِيُّ الْحَنَفِيَّةِ يَعْنِي بِهِ نَفْسَهُ وَرَمْلِيُّ الشَّافِعِيَّةِ رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ تَعَالَى، فَتَحَصَّلَ أَنَّ الِاقْتِدَاءَ بِالْمُخَالِفِ الْمُرَاعَى فِي الْفَرَائِضِ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ الِانْفِرَادِ إذْ لَمْ يَجِدْ غَيْرَهُ، وَإِلَّا فَالِاقْتِدَاءُ بِالْمُوَافِقِ أَفْضَلُ.»
Only Allah (عز و جل) knows best.
Written by Mufti Sheik Abdel Ahaad Imrit
Checked and approved by Mufti Mohammed Tosir Miah
Darul Ifta Birmingham