Bite onto it with your molar teeth, and beware of newly invented matters.” When we look at the path of the Companions, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him)

The rest of the Companions and the early generations followed the same way: following the Qur’an and Sunnah and avoiding innovations. It has been said: “Follow and do not innovate; you have been sufficed.” Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud rebuked the people of Masjid banee Haneefah for introducing new practices, saying: “You have brought a dark innovation. Either you are more guided than the Messenger of Allah, or you have invented something in the religion...” Imam Ash-Shafi‘i said: “If a hadith is authentic, then that is my school.” Imam Ahmad said: “I am amazed at someone who knows the chain of narration and its authenticity yet turns to the opinion of Sufyan or Malik.” Malik said: “Everyone’s statement may be accepted or rejected except the one in this grave,” meaning the Prophet. Abu Hanifah, although known for using reasoning, also emphasised the obligation of following authentic evidence. Sufyan said: “We found that all matters are in following [i.e. the Sunnah].” As for the four well-known schools—the school of Abu Hanifah (An-Nu‘man ibn Thabit), the school of Malik ibn Anas of Madinah, the school of Muhammad ibn Idris Ash-Shafi‘i, and the school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal—their founders did not establish them as sects and call people to blindly follow them. Rather, these schools developed after their time, when their teachings were recorded and students gathered around them. The duty upon everyone is to follow the Qur’an and Sunnah. Strictly binding oneself to one madh-hab is not allowed. When Ibn Rajab once gave a fatwa saying it was obligatory to adhere to one of the four madh-habs, other scholars rejected this view and considered it a mistake on his part. Al-Ma‘sumi, in his treatise to the People of Japan, explained the problem of madh-habism. The people of Japan once wished to enter Islam, but madh-habist disputes discouraged them. Some followers of one madh-hab told them that if they entered Islam according to another school, they would be considered disbelievers. As a result, they said, “If we would still be considered disbelievers after entering your religion, then we will remain as we are,” and they stayed upon disbelief because of this ugly madh-habism and blind loyalty. Al-Ma‘sumi clarified that the obligation is to follow the Qur’an and Sunnah and to avoid divisive fanaticism. The duty upon all Muslims is to hold firmly to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). There is also the Dhahiri madh-hab, but it is no longer considered a recognised madh-hab by most scholars because of its extreme literalism and rigidity. Likewise, the Zaydis try to count themselves among the madh-habs of Ahlus-Sunnah, but this claim has not been accepted from them because they do not have a sound madh-hab. Rather, as our Sheikh Muqbil used to say: “The Zaydis are Mu‘tazilah in creed and Hanafi in fiqh.” Another group that claims acceptance and recognition is the Ibadi madh-hab, which is originally a Kharijite madh-hab. It relies on weak hadiths, as I explained in my book “Tahdhir Al-Ibad min Ghayat Al-Murad fi Nadhm Al-I‘tiqad’,” where I clarified that they follow a path of deviation similar to the Khawarij and the Mu‘tazilah, and that their madh-hab is not recognised. Among the worst of these madh-habs is the Ja‘fari madh-hab, the Twelver Shi‘ite madh-hab of Iran. It is built upon serious theological and legal corruption. We mention these groups only to show that such madh-habs are not to be relied upon.