Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Ibn ʿAbdul-ʿAzīz Āl Ash-Shaykh حفظه الله said:
Acting upon knowledge: from it is that whose leaving off is kufr; from it is that whose leaving off is a sin; from it is that whose leaving off is makrūh; and from it is that whose leaving off is mubāḥ.
that we have not been commanded to follow him in.
Therefore, if a person leaves off acting upon them, then leaving them off is mubāḥ.
This is because a Muslim has not been commanded to follow such matters as the particular manner of his walking, his voice, and the natural,
Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Ibn Fawzān Ibn ʿAbdullāh Al-Fawzān حفظه الله said:
Seeking judgment from the Qurʾān or seeking judgment from the Sunnah is not restricted to the issue of conflict in disputes among people regarding wealth; where they consider “judging by what Allah has revealed”
to mean only judging between people in their wealth and disputes concerning worldly matters.
No, rather it is judging between them in every disagreement and every conflict.
And conflict in ʿaqīdah is more severe than conflict in wealth, and conflict in matters of worship and
Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Ibn Fawzān Ibn ʿAbdullāh Al-Fawzān حفظه الله said:
“So we must come together to present our differences to the Book of Allāh, even in matters of fiqh. If we differ on something, we present it to the evidence; whoever the evidence testifies for, we stand with him,
and whoever errs against the evidence, we do not take the error.
Indeed, Allāh جل وعلا did not leave us to differ and divide without setting down for us a scale to distinguish the correct from the erroneous. Rather, He set down for us the Qurʾān and the Sunnah: «Then return it
Abu ʿAbdur-Razzāq retweeted
The Response to the Arguments of Those Who Affirm TAQLID (Blind Following) -----By Imam Ibn Al Qayyim:
Imam Ibn Al Qayyim said:
The people of evidence said: How strange it is for you, O community of blind followers, who bear witness against yourselves, while the testimony of the people of knowledge is that they are neither from its people nor counted among its family? How have you nullified your school of thought with your own evidence? What is left for the blind follower, and what is left for reasoning through evidence?
Where is the status of the blind follower relative to the status of the reasoning scholar? And whatever you mentioned of proofs were nothing but borrowed clothes that you stripped from the owner of the proof, only to adorn yourselves with them among the people! And you were in that resembling those who do not give what they were not given, speaking of knowledge by what you bore witness against yourselves that you have missed it.
That is the garment of falsehood that you put on, and the status that you usurped from its people, so tell us: Have you turned to blind following as a guide for you to it, and its proof points to you?
Thus, you descended to reasoning without an origin, and you were remote from blind following, or you took its path by agreement and searched without evidence? Which of the two divisions you have departed from is necessary, and whichever of them it is, the corruption of the school of blind following becomes inevitable, and returning to the school of evidence becomes mandatory. We address you in the language of evidence, saying: We are not of the people of this path; and if we address you in the language of blind following, then there is no meaning to whatever evidence you have established.
The most astonishing thing is that every faction among the sects—and every nation among the nations that claims it is upon the truth, except for the sect of blind following, for they do not claim that; even if they claimed it, they would be witnesses against themselves that they are falsifiers—are witnesses to themselves that they did not believe those statements due to a proof that led them to it, nor a demonstration that pointed them to it. Rather, their path is pure blind following, and the blind follower does not know the truth from falsehood, nor the current state from the idle.
Even more astonishing than this is that they assert in their books the invalidity of blind following and its prohibition, and that it is not permissible to issue a ruling in the religion of Allah. If the ruler stipulated that he should rule according to a specific school of thought, his condition would not be valid, nor his appointment; among them are those who corrected the appointment and nullified the condition.
Similarly, the fatwa-giver is forbidden from issuing fatwas based on what he does not know to be correct by the consensus of the people, and the blind follower has no knowledge of the correctness or corruption of a statement, for the path to that is blocked. Then each of them knows about himself that his blind following of his leader does not depart from his statement, and he leaves aside everything that opposes him from a book, a Sunnah, a statement of a companion, or the statement of someone who is more knowledgeable than his leader or his peer. This is among the most astonishing things!
Also, we know by necessity that in the era of the Companions, no man took a single man among them to blindly follow him in all his statements without omitting anything, while casting aside the statements of everyone else.
Abu ʿAbdur-Razzāq retweeted
This statement of @UstAbdulrahman needs to be clarified.
It's too vague! It can be interpreted in many different ways.
Unite with who and upon what?!
And is this call to unity in this manner from the way of the Salaf?!
Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah رحمه الله said:
Most of the chapters of the Qurʾān—rather, every single chapter of the Qurʾān—contains both types of Tawḥīd. Rather, we make the following general statement: Every verse in the Qurʾān contains Tawḥīd, bears witness to it, and calls
(v) Information about the people of Shirk, what He inflicted upon them in this worldly life by way of punishment, and what will befall them in the Hereafter in the form of torment. This is the recompense of those who have departed from the rule of Tawḥīd.