The Muslims generally used to perform Taqlīd to the mujtahidin despite their disagreements since the basis of their disagreements was the Sharī’ah evidence. So the understanding of every mujtahid of the address of the Legislator (khitab al-shaari’) is considered a Sharī’ah rule with respect to him and with respect to the one who makes Taqlīd to him. This is because because the address of the Legislator is the hukm shar’i (Sharī’ah rule) and the understanding of the Legislator’s address is a Sharī’ah rule but in respect to the one who understood it and in respect to the one who follows him in this understanding. Those who attained the understanding of the Legislator’s address used to perform Ijtihād. Those who did not reach the level of Ijtihād used to follow, in ahkām (rules), those who had reached the level of Ijtihād and practised Ijtihād. The issue was not that of following the faqih personally just as the issue is not one of making Taqlīd to a mazhab. Rather, the issue is about adopting the hukm shar’i deduced by the faqih and acting upon it. Since, the Muslim is ordered to follow the Sharī’ah rule only and act upon it and not follow a mazhab or person or act according to any particular mazhab or follow any particular person. When he is able to reach the hukm shar’i through his own Ijtihād he should do that, if not he should adopt a hukm deduced by someone else. In the early ages the mujtahidin could be counted by the thousands. That is why we find that the mujtahidin whom the Muslims used to follow were not restricted to four, five, six or any number of mazhabs, in fact there were many mazhabs and numerous mujtahidin. Each group used to follow rules deduced by a mujtahid whether he was from a mazhab or not. For example, the general population of Kufa acted upon the fatwa of Abu Hanifah and Sufyan al-Thawri but the Shi’a used to act upon the mazhab of Ja’far al-Sadiq. The practise of the people of Makkah used to be according to the fatwa of Ibn Jurayj and the people of Madina on the fatwas of Malik and the people of Basra on the fatwas of ‘Uthman and the people of al-Sham on the fatwas of al-Awza’i and the people of Egypt on the fatwas of Ibn Sa’d, and the people of Khurasan on the fatwas of ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak and some of the people of Yemen on the fatwas of Zayd ibn al-Husayn. Many of the Muslims used to follow the fatwas of Sa’id ibn al Musayyab, Ibn Abi Layla, ‘Ikrama, Rabi’i Ar-Ra’i, Muhammad ibn shihaab Az-Zuhri , Hasan Al Basari, Laith ibn sa’ad, Sufyan Ibn ‘Uyayna, Ishaq ibn Rahawiya, Abi Thawr, Dawud Az-Zahiri, Ibn shibrima and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Each of them was a Mujtahid and lead a mazhab. Each of the mazhabs from these mazhabs had a particular methodology in Ijtihād and a particular ra’i (opinion) in the ahkam. Many of the Mujtahidin and Imams were judges and rulers in the lands. The differences among the imams and the judges and rulers lead to a difference in the ahkam (rules), each one judged with his own opinion or according to the opinion of a faqih whose opinion he held. This resulted in the presence of different judgements in the state, due to this there were ‘Ulamā who were obviously inclined towards unifying the ruling by which judgement is given and wanted the Khalifah to issue an order for people to adhere to it. At that time, certain people who knew about the situation of the society took the view that a comprehensive book should be written to which judges and other should refer, so as to lighten the burden of the judges and make it easy for the litigants. Ibn al-Muqaffa’ wrote a letter to the Khalifah al-Mansur regarding this matter, in which it was mentioned:

However, al-Mansur did not act upon this letter although he was impressed by it. So he took steps to make the Fuqaha and the muhaddithin record what has reached them until people had references to which they could refer. The reason for al-Mansur not acting upon the opinion of Ibn al-Muqaffa’ in laying down a constitution and canons for the state which would have brought the people together on specific ahkāms was what transpired between him and Malik. Ibn Sa’ad narrates in al-Tabaqat that Malik bin Anas said:

Owing to this, the mazhabs and opinions were not unified and Ijtihād and ra’i remained with the people in adopting the hukm they deemed correct. And the choice remained for judges and rulers to judge with what they deemed as appropriate. Due to this each imam of fiqh has students who came to study their opinions and explain his mazhab and the outlook towards this disagreement which took place changed and it became a science in its own right, they called it the science of disagreement (‘ilm al-khilaf). They studied it just as they studied usul al-fiqh. They said that the disagreement of the imams was a mercy. The student of each imam used to expand on the furu’ (branches of fiqh). It was this expansion which preserved the mazhabs of certain mujtahidin and was the reason for the extinction of others. Al-Awza’i, al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Thawri and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari are some of the greatest imams in terms of their breadth of knowledge and Ijtihād. However they did not expand in furu’ rather confined themselves to the usul and they did not have students who would expound the position of their mazhab, that is why they were not acted upon and they did not spread. As for the rest of the imams such as Abu Hanifah, Ja’far al-Sadiq, Zayd ibn al-Husayn, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Malik, they had students and followers, so their mazhabs were recorded and continued to exist. Despite the restrictions imposed by Abu Ja’far al-Mansur on Ja’far al-Sadiq and others from the family of ‘Ali he deduced rules and he had students from the Shi’a and others. They recorded his opinions and looked upon them as something akin to the Sunnah. His mazhab spread in many regions of the world. Abu Hanifah used to have many students, the most well known are Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al Shaybani and Zufar. They were all mujtahids like Abu Hanifah. Although they mixed their opinions with his, the credit goes to them for recording the mazhab of Abu Hanifah. The same goes for Imam Malik. He used to reside in Madinah; he had many students who were widely known for scrutinising the hadīth and transmitters of hadīth, especially in regard to the book al Muwatta. His students after him used to record his fatwas and expand on the furu’ and give their views on issues. Despite Malik’s fame the credit for spreading his mazhab goes to his students. As for al-Shafi’i he had established his towering fame by his own hands in usul al-fiqh which is indicated by what comes in the large work al-Umm which along with al-Risala and Ibtal al-Istihsan are the greatest samples of intellectual awakening in that age. His students, such as al-Rabi’ and al-Muzni who proceeded according this method and studied his opinions and expanded his mazhab and so it spread far and wide. Similarly for Ahmad ibn Hanbal, despite the dominant prevalence of hadīth in his mazhab, he had students who expanded his mazhab for him and studied his opinions. The credit first and foremost goes to those students, not only for spreading the mazhab of their teachers and imams but also for the exposition of the fiqh and ensuring that it flourished until their age was considered more radiant than the age of the imams. Since it was in this age that the commentaries of ahkām and clarification of evidences took place, in this way the fuqaha rushed ahead in studying fiqh and explaining it especially the science of usul al-fiqh which is the true basis of fiqh. The situation of fiqh continued to spread until it flourished greatly. The pinnacle of its bloom was in the fourth century A.H, a century after the mazhabs were formed