Taassub Al-Madhhabi: Scholarly Perspectives in Islamic Jurisprudence

HRMARS - Adherence to a particular madhhab in Islamic jurisprudence is a well-established tradition among Muslims. However, ta?a??ub (fanaticism) towards one’s madhhab, to the extent of rejecting other scholarly views without valid reasoning or knowledge, is strongly condemned by the majority of Muslim scholars. This article examines the phenomenon of ta?a??ub al-madhhab? (sectarian partisanship) and its implications, with reference to the perspectives of prominent classical and contemporary Islamic scholars. Employing a qualitative methodology, this study draws upon primary sources, including works of u??l al-fiqh, fiqh, and ?aq?dah, as well as secondary sources such as academic journals, books, and conference papers. The analysis adopts inductive, deductive, and comparative approaches to synthesise the relevant literature and scholarly positions. The findings indicate that ta?a??ub towards a madhhab arises from multiple factors, including limited access to shar?? evidence, blind imitation (taql?d a?m?), inadequate understanding of u??l al-fiqh, and the influence of community norms. Scholars across the madh?hib agree that while following a single school is permissible for purposes of legal consistency, fanaticism that disregards authentic evidence, or belittles other valid opinions, contradicts the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. This study concludes that Muslims should adopt madhhab affiliation with awareness and scholarly understanding, avoiding sectarian rigidity while respecting legitimate differences of opinion (ikhtil?f). By doing so, they can uphold the integrity of Islamic law and foster unity within the ummah.