Some claim that it is mandatory to adhere to one Imam or one school of Fiqh. This is completely wrong since we are ordered to follow Islam and not to one specific human being. And the person who meets the requirements of Ijtihad does not have to adhere to one specific school of thought. Even if someone is not a Mujtahid, he does not have to follow one specific school. Rather, each individual is ordered to follow the Shari‟ah, which is extracted or deduced by Mujtahids. Consequently, the adherence is to the Shari‟ah and not the Imam or the Mujtahid. This point was emphasised by each of the scholars and Imams.

On the other hand, the claim that we need a new school of Fiqh due to the current situation of the Muslim Ummah is unfounded. Since what is really needed is the application of Islam in a comprehensive way, and not just to develop another school among the other already existing schools of Fiqh. There are however, two factors that must be kept in mind.

1) New problems emerging daily, in every era and every generation, and that 2) The Ummah is ordered to follow the divine rule to solve any problem.

These two factors require therefore, that every generation of the Muslim Ummah must have at least one Mujtahid amongst them in order to address the newly arising problems. In order to deduce the Hukm Shar‟i, this Mujtahid does not have to discuss old problems since they are already addressed. Therefore, in this regard, the need is for Mujtahids to meet the requirements of Ijtihad, in order to address new problems and not necessarily form a new school of thought.

However, the presence of vast numbers of Mujtahids among the Ummah to find solutions to the newly arising problems was greatly reduced when the doors of Ijtihad were closed. This tragic event took place after the sacking of Baghdad in the Seventh Century Hijri. This led to a problem in the Ummah because closing the door of Ijtihad resulted in very few people who could perform Ijtihad. Thus the newly arising problems were not being solved through the Shari‟ah.

The closing of the doors of Ijtihad resulted in the development of various philosophies concerning the status of the Ummah in its adherence to Islam.

These philosophies can be summarised as follows:

 Some people started issuing opinions concerning the new problems, from their own minds, without any Daleel or specific methodology of conducting Ijtihad.

 Others prematurely jumped to answers without acquiring the necessary prerequisites for Ijtihad, claiming that Ijtihad should not be closed and that the current situation provided everyone with the chance to perform Ijtihad.

 Others began undermining Ijtihad, claiming that every issue is debatable and therefore it is up to the individual to pick and choose whatever is most convenient.

All of these claims mentioned above are invalid because they caused Muslims to start taking their desires, wishes, intellect, or someone else‟s intellect as a reference, while we are ordered to take Islam as the one and only reference.

The doors of Ijtihad should not have been closed because without Ijtihad new problems would not be addressed by the Hukm Shar‟i. Yet, at the same time the doors of Ijtihad should not be flung open without any restrictions, controls or requirements. There are actually many requirements to be met in order to meet the qualifications of a Mujtahid, including sincerity and justice.

Others began taking advantage of the existence of the many schools of thought by shopping around for the most convenient opinion and compiling strange verdicts of each Mujtahid. These people went to each Madhab separating the lawful opinions from the unlawful things of the Madhab. They took the lawful verdicts, leaving the unlawful, until ending up with a new Madhab where everything is lawful and nothing is unlawful. This action is a major deviation from Islam.

Imam Al-Baihaqi reported: “Isma‟eel Al Qadi said: „One day I entered to Al Mu‟tadid, one of the Abbasid Khaleefahs, and immediately he showed me a book to read. I found that the author had compiled in it, the strange sayings of every „Alim. So I told the Khaleefah that the author of this book is a heretic. The Khaleefah asked why this was so, and I told him that those sayings were not presented by the scholars as they are presented in this book. He who legalised the Mu‟tah marriage did not legalise singing, while he who legalised one action would not legalise another action. Additionally, each „Alim has strange opinions, so if one would compile the pitfalls of all the Imams, and adopt them, then the Deen would be lost. The Khaleefah then ordered the book to be burned.” Imam Al-Awza‟i said: “He who traces the strange opinions of the scholars is out of Islam. You would find a scholar with a lot of knowledge and value, and also with a pitfall. So if a person was to collect the pitfalls of all the scholars and form a new Madhab, then what kind of „Ilm would you have?‟”41

Others claim that having different Madhahib is wrong and that we need to reunify all of the Madhabs and come under one single Madhab, completely free from sectarianism and firmly based on sound scholarship. This, they claim, would be the prerequisite toward reunification of the Ummah and then after this, would we look toward establishing the Khilafah.

The presence of the many Madhahib was not in itself an objective. The objective is to understand the rules in order to execute them. The understanding of the text leads to different opinions, which leads to different Madhabs. Due to reasons listed in section.