Disclaimer: This article is a personal reflection and does not represent any formal fatwa or Shariah ruling. I am not an 'Alim, nor am I qualified to issue Islamic legal judgments. This piece is merely an intellectual exercise intended to highlight a potential flaw in the methodology adopted by some in matters of Taqleed. It is written with respect, humility, and without any intention to criticize personalities or question sincerity. May Allah guide us all to what is right. Ameen.

Introduction

Among practicing Muslims today, a certain approach toward Taqleed (following a qualified jurist or Mujtahid Imam) has become increasingly common: that of selectively following different Imams based on whichever ruling appears "easier" in a given situation. For example, a person might follow Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) in one issue but choose the opinion of Imam Shafi’i (RA) in another — not because of scholarly analysis, but because the latter opinion is easier to act upon.

This article aims to critique this methodology — not out of dismissal or condemnation, but to shed light on what I believe are serious epistemological and methodological concerns. While those who adopt this approach may be sincere and striving to adhere to Islam as best as they understand it, sincerity alone does not guarantee correctness in method.

The Problem with Selective Taqleed Based on Ease

At the heart of this discussion lies a shift in reasoning: from “Whose interpretation do I trust to be correct?” to “Which opinion is easier for me to follow?”

The four great madhahib — Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali — are not personal preferences or innovations in Islam (Astagfirullah). They are structured, scholarly, and deeply rooted methodologies for deriving rulings from the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Mujtahideen who founded these schools did not derive rulings based on ease or convenience, but upon rigorous academic and spiritual effort to reach what they believed, in their God-given insight and knowledge, to be the correct understanding of the Divine Law.

To then choose between these rulings based on one’s personal sense of ease is, in my opinion, a misplaced criterion — one that opens the door to subtle interference of personal desire (nafs) and undermines the humility and trust that a Muqallid must have in the scholarship of the Mujtahideen.

The Two Possible States: Mujtahid or Muqallid

In classical Islamic thought, every Muslim falls into one of two categories with respect to legal reasoning:

1. The Mujtahid

A Mujtahid is a scholar qualified by vast knowledge, piety, and training to independently derive rulings from the Qur’an and Sunnah using the tools of Usul al-Fiqh. For such a person, following the opinion of another Mujtahid is not permitted — they must follow the conclusions of their own ijtihad.

2. The Muqallid

A Muqallid is anyone who is not a Mujtahid — whether a layperson or even a scholar who has not reached the level of Ijtihad. For a Muqallid, the obligation is to trust and follow the rulings of a Mujtahid, not based on personal reasoning or comparison, but based on the recognition of their authority and scholarship.

Thus, a Muqallid cannot critically evaluate the correctness of a Mujtahid’s ijtihad. To do so would be to claim an ability to judge Ijtihad — which is itself a function of being a Mujtahid.

The Principle of Ease (التيسير) – A Misunderstood Concept

It is often argued that Islam encourages ease and removes hardship. This is true. 

However, the definition of ease in the Shariah is not left to personal intuition or convenience. It is a legal concept, derived and contextualized through rigorous scholarly analysis. The principles of "hardship brings concession" (المشقة تجلب التيسير) and others like it are established tools within Usul al-Fiqh.

In other words: the Mujtahideen already incorporated the concept of ease into their rulings.

So when a layperson says: “I choose this opinion because it’s easier,” they risk making one or more of the following fallacies and mistakes.

Four Key Arguments:

1. A Layperson Cannot Judge an Ijtihad

Only a Mujtahid is qualified to evaluate, compare, and derive rulings based on texts. A non-Mujtahid (Muqallid) lacks the academic tools to assess whether a certain ijtihad correctly applies a principle like “ease” or not.

Therefore, when a Muqallid prefers one ruling over another claiming, “this opinion makes more sense,” or “this seems easier,” they are unintentionally stepping into the role of a Mujtahid — a role they are not qualified to occupy.

2. The Principle of Ease Requires Scholarly Interpretation

Ease is not about what "feels easier." It is about what the Shariah defines as ease — and that definition comes through:

• Mastery of the Arabic language

• Contextual understanding of the Qur'an and Hadith

• Application of legal principles and maxims

• Consideration of objectives of Shariah (Maqasid)

Only a Mujtahid has the depth of knowledge to balance these factors and derive what constitutes "ease" in a lawful way.

3. The Mujtahideen Already Considered Ease in Their Ijtihad

The principle of ease is not external to their methodologies — it is internal. Therefore, when Imam Abu Hanifa gives a ruling and Imam Shafi’i gives another, each has already considered the relevant legal concessions, difficulties, and circumstances — all through academic precision.

To act as though they overlooked or undervalued ease is to implicitly critique their ijtihad, which a Muqallid is not in a position to do.

4. Selecting Opinions Based on Personal Ease Is Either:

a) An Implicit Claim of Ijtihad: By choosing which Mujtahid “applied ease correctly,” one is claiming the ability to critically judge scholarly interpretation — effectively claiming Mujtahid-level authority, in which case Taqleed would not be allowed for them.

OR

b) Following Personal Desire (Hawa): If one is not capable of such academic judgment, then choosing based on ease becomes a subjective and potentially nafs-driven endeavor. While not necessarily sinful, it is a methodologically weak approach — one that risks using the Shariah to serve convenience rather than truth.

Anticipated Counterargument: "But Islam Encourages Ease!"

Yes — but that ease has already been interpreted by those more qualified.

The rulings of the four madhahib are not rigid obstacles to the Shariah’s ease — they are the scholarly manifestation of that very ease, refined through centuries of scholarship.

To bypass that tradition on the basis of personal judgment is not applying the principle of ease — it is applying subjective ease, which is not always in line with Divine ease.

Conclusion

This reflection is not meant to alienate or discourage Muslims who may find themselves following different opinions. Rather, it is a humble invitation to reconsider why we follow whom we follow. The foundation of Taqleed is not convenience — it is trust in the scholarship of those who devoted their lives to understanding the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Key Takeaways:

• Laypeople cannot judge the validity of a Mujtahid’s ijtihad.

• The concept of “ease” is a legal principle, not a personal feeling.

• The Mujtahideen already factored this principle into their rulings.

• Selecting rulings based on personal ease is either claiming ijtihad (which invalidates Taqleed) or an unintentional submission to one’s desires.

A Final Note of Humility

This article is merely a personal contemplation — not a scholarly verdict. I fully recognize my own limitations in knowledge and authority. The intention is not to declare others wrong, but to encourage all of us to reflect with honesty and humility on our methods of practicing this beautiful Deen.

May Allah guide us to sincerity, humility, and the path most pleasing to Him. Ameen.