The following passages concern the rulings related to following the commands of the Imām according to the late Shafii school. Many thanks to an Ustaz who supplied several of these passages while kindly hinting that I should take a closer look at the Shafii school on this issue.
This post provides information to readers interested in the rulings according to the Shafii. It complements—no supplants—my earlier post presenting the International Islamic Fiqh Council of Jeddah’s position.
I will present seven passages. The first passage presents the most basic foundational rulings following. Subsequent passages introduce additional material, gradually building up to a final passage that wraps everything together. If you’re in a rush, go ahead and jump straight to the seventh passage.
* * *
1. The foundational ruling going back to at least Imām al-Nawawī onward that is found in numerous books is this:
تَجِبُ طاعَةُ الإمامِ فِي أمْرِهِ ونَهْيِهِ ما لَمْ يُخالِفْ حُكْمَ الشَّرْعِ
“It is obligatory to obey Imām’s commands and prohibitions so long as they do not disagree with a legal ruling.”
Source(s): Al-Nawawī, Rawḍat al-ṭālibīn; al-Damīrī, Al-Najm al-wahhāj; Zakariyā al-Anṣārī, Asnā al-maṭālib and Fatḥ al-wahhāb; al-Ramlī, Nihāyat al-muḥtāj; al-Khaṭīb, Mughnī al-muḥtāj and Al-Iqnāʿ. A similar statement is in al-Bujayramī’s notes on Ibn Qāsim’s Fatḥ al-qarīb.
* * *
2. Another statement that reiterates the above with a little bit of additional clarity is this:
المُعْتَمَدُ وُجُوبُ جَمِيعِ ما أمَرَ بِهِ الإمامُ ما لَمْ يَكُنْ مُحَرَّمًا أوْ مَكْرُوهًا
“The reliable opinion is that everything the Imām commands is obligatory so long as it is not unlawful or disliked.”
Source(s): Al-Bujayramī’s notes on al-Khaṭīb’s Iqnāʿ.
* * *
3. This next statement fleshes things out a bit more and adds considering whether a neutral act [mubāḥ] serves the common good. It is also found in numerous late books.
وإنَّما وجب امْتِثال أمره فِي ذَلِك لِأنَّهُ إذا أمر بِواجِب تَأكد وُجُوبه وإذا أمر بمندوب وجب وإن أمر بمباح فَإن كانَ فِيهِ مصلحَة عامَّة كَتَرْكِ شرب الدُّخان وجب بِخِلاف ما إذا أمر بِمحرم أو مَكْرُوه أو مُباح لا مصلحَة فِيهِ عامَّ
“It is obligatory to comply with his [i.e. the Imām’s] command because when he commands an obligatory act, it [his command] emphasises its being obligatory; and when he commands a recommended act, it is [now] obligatory. If he commands a neutral [mubāḥ] act which serves the common good (e.g. ceasing to smoke), it is [now] obligatory. [This is] in contrast to if he were to command an unlawful or disliked acts, or an act that does not serve the common good.”
Source(s): Al-Nawawī al-Jāwī’s Nihāyat al-zayn on al-Milibārī’s Qurrat al-ʿayn; cf al-Jamal’s notes on Zakariyā al-Anṣārī’s Fatḥ al-wahhāb. A similar passage will come again in Bughyat al-mustarshidīn.
* * *
4. This fourth passage mentions the possibility of disciplinary punishment for disobeying the Imām’s commands. Even, apparently, for disobeying the Imām’s command to disobey Allah.
كُلُّ ما لَيْسَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ يَجِبُ بِأمْرِهِ ولَوْ مُباحًا ولا تَجِبُ طاعَتُهُ فِي الأمْرِ بِالمَعْصِيَةِ لَكِنْ يُعَزَّرُ مَن خالَفَهُ
“Everything that is not disobedience [to Allah] becomes obligatory by his [the Imām’s] command—even if [the command act is originally] neutral [mubāḥ]. It is not obligatory to obey him in commands to disobey [Allah]. However, whoever disobeys him may be subject to a disciplinary punishment [taʿzīr].”
Source(s): Al-Jamal’s notes on Zakariyā al-Anṣārī’s Fatḥ al-wahhāb.
[See Addendum 2 for 4b and 4c]
* * *
5. The next passage examines whether the Imām’s commands are extrinsically [zāhiran] or intrinsically [bātinan] obligatory to follow. The next piece clarifies that ”extrinsically” means that one is not sinful for not complying, while “intrinsically” means that he would be sinful.
وإذا أمر بحرام على المأمور وإن لم يكن حراما عند الآمر .. لم تجب طاعته فيه، أو بمباح للمأمور كالتسعير، أو بمندوب لا مصلحة عامة فيه، كصلاة راتبة .. وجب ظاهرا فقط، أو بمندوب فيه مصلحة عامة كالصيام للاستسقاء .. وجب ظاهرا وباطنا، أو بواجب .. تأكد وجوبه
“If he [the Imām] commands something the one commanded considers unlawful (even if it is not unlawful according to the commander), it is not obligatory to obey him in it. Or [if he commands] an act that is neutral [mubāḥ] according to the one being commanded (like setting prices) or recommended but does not serve the common good (like rawātib prayers), it is only extrinsically obligatory [zāhiran]. Or [if he commands] an act that is recommended and serves the common good (like fasting for the Drought Prayer), its obligation is extrinsically [zāhiran] and intrinsically [bātinan]. Or [if he commands] an act that is obligatory, its obligatory nature is emphasised.”
Source(s): Bushā al-karīm.
* * *
7. The final passage brings everything together and fleshes out what an earlier passage had alluded to concerning smoking.
الاستسقاء (مسألة ك) يجب امتثال أمر الإمام … وإن كان المأمور به مباحاً أو مكروهاً أو حراماً لم يجب امتثال أمره فيه كما قاله م ر وتردد فيه في التحفة، ثم مال إلى الوجوب في كل ما أمر به الإمام ولو محرماً لكن ظاهراً فقط، وما عداه إن كان فيه مصلحة عامة وجب ظاهراً وباطناً وإلا فظاهراً فقط أيضاً، والعبرة في المندوب والمباح بعقيدة المأمور، ومعنى قولهم ظاهراً أنه لا يأثم بعدم الامتثال، ومعنى باطناً أنه يأثم اهـ. قلت: وقال ش ق: والحاصل أنه تجب طاعة الإمام فيما أمر به ظاهراً وباطناً مما ليس بحرام أو مكروه، فالواجب يتأكد، والمندوب يجب، وكذا المباح إن كان فيه مصلحة كترك شرب التنباك إذا قلنا بكراهته لأن فيه خسة بذوي الهيئات، وقد وقع أن السلطان أمر نائبه بأن ينادي بعدم شرب الناس له في الأسواق والقهاوي، فخالفوه وشربوا فهم العصاة، ويحرم شربه الآن امتثالاً لأمره
“It is obligatory to comply with the Imām’s commands. If the commanded act is neutral [mubāḥ] or disliked or unlawful, it is not obligatory to comply with his commands. [This] is what al-Ramlī has said [in Al-Nihāyah]. He [Ibn Ḥajar] wavered in Al-Tuḥfāh, and then inclined towards the obligatory nature of everything the Imām commands—even if it is unlawful, though only extrinsically [zāhiran]. [As for] everything else, if it serves the common good, then it is obligatory extrinsically and intrinsically [bāṭinan]. Otherwise [if it does not serve the common good], it is also only [obligatory] in public. What is considered for an act being recommended and neutral [mubāḥ] is the beliefs of the one commanded.
What they mean by saying ‘extrinsically’ is that he is not sinful for not complying.
What they mean by saying ‘intrinsically’ is that he is sinful.
[End of quotation]
I say: al-Sharqāwī said: ‘The outcome is that obeying the Imām is obligatory in whatever he commands, extrinsically and intrinsically, for matters that are not unlawful or offensive. Thus, the obligatory act is emphasised; the recommended act is obligatory. Likewise, the neutral act [mubāḥ] which serves the [common] good—like, for example, abandoning smoking tobacco if we say that it is offensive since it is disgraceful to those of good standing. It so happened that the Sulṭān commanded his deputy to announce that people are not to show it in the marketplaces and coffee houses. They defied him and smoked it, and they are sinful. It is now unlawful to smoke it out of complying with his command.”
Source(s): Bughyat al-mustardhidīn.
* * * * * *
ADDENDUM. Here are several additional passages.
8. The following text is one of many late examples suggesting that Imām al-Ramlī—like Ibn Ḥajar—considered it obligatory to follow the Imām’s command to perform an act that is initially neutral [mubāḥ] and serves the common good.
(قَوْلُهُ: ما لَمْ يُخالِفْ الشَّرْعَ) هَذا يُفِيدُ وُجُوبَ المُباحِ إذا أمَرَ بِهِ؛ لِأنَّهُ لَمْ يُخالِفْ حُكْمَ الشَّرْعِ. وقَدْ نَقَلَ عَنْهُ سم عَلى مَنهَجٍ أنَّهُ يُناقِضُ كَلامَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ، وعِبارَتُهُ: وقَضِيَّةُ ما قَرَّرَهُ السّابِقَ أنَّهُ لَوْ أمَرَ بِمُباحٍ وجَبَ، وارْتَضاهُ م ر وفِي وقْتٍ آخَرَ قالَ: لا يَجِبُ فِي المُباحِ، فَقُلْت لَهُ: إلّا أنْ تَكُونَ فِيهِ مَصْلَحَةٌ عامَّةٌ، فَوافَقَ ومَشى عَلى أنَّهُ إذا أمَرَ بِالخُرُوجِ إلى الصَّحْراءِ لِلِاسْتِسْقاءِ وجَبَ اهـ.
Source(s): Al-Sharwānī’s notes on al-Ramlī’s Nihāyat al-muḥtāj.
* * *
9. Some earlier sources:
طاعَةَ الإمامِ واجِبَةٌ إلّا فِيما يُعْلَمُ أنَّهُ ظُلْمٌ
“Obeying the Imām is obligatory except in what is known to be wrong.”
Source(s): Al-Māwardi, Al-Ḥāwī al-kabīr.
* * *
10. Here’s one that explains the purpose of having Imāms. The explanation is pertinent to current issues.
يجب طاعة الإمام في أوامره ونواهيه… ولأن المقصود مِن نصب الإمام أن تتحد الكلمة، وتندفع الفِتَن، ولو لم توجِب الطاعة، والتأبِّي غالب على الطباع، استبدَّ كُلٌّ برأيه وثارت الفتنُ
“It is obligatory to obey the Imām in his commands and prohibitions, […] since the objective in installing the Imām is to unify opinion, repel strive. And if obeying was not obligatory while refusal dominates natural dispositions, everyone would rule according to his opinions, and strife would be unleashed.”
Source: Al-Rāfiʿī, Al-ʿAzīz sharḥ Al-Wajīz.
* * *
11. And here is more of the reasoning for obeying lawful acts is obligatory.
لِأنَّ الظّاهِرَ أنَّهُ لا يَأْمُرُ إلّا بِحَقٍّ، ولِأنَّ طاعَةَ السُّلْطانِ واجِبَةٌ فِيما لا يُعْلَمُ أنَّهُ مَعْصِيَةٌ
“…because what is apparent is that he [the Sulṭān] does not command except what is right, and because obeying the Sulṭān is obligatory in whatever is not known to be disobedience [to Allah].”
Souce(s): Al-Baghawī, Al-Tahdhīb; Al-Nawawī, Rawḍat al-ṭālibīn; Zakariyā al-Anṣārī, Asnā al-maṭālib; al-Shirbīnī, Mughni al-muḥtāj.
* * *
ADDENDUM 2.
The next two passages should be read with (4).
4b. Another passage sheds additional light on this…
ومِمّا يَحْرُمُ التَّسْعِيرُ عَلى الحاكِمِ ولَوْ فِي غَيْرِ المَطْعُوماتِ لِخَبَرِ «لا تُسَعِّرُوا فَإنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ المُسَعِّرُ» ولا يَحْرُمُ البَيْعُ بِخِلافِهِ لَكِنْ لِلْحاكِمِ أنْ يُعَزِّرَ مَن خالَفَ إذا بَلَغَهُ لِشَقِّ العَصا أيْ: اخْتِلالِ النِّظامِ فَهُوَ مِن التَّعْزِيرِ عَلى الجائِزِ
“Among what is unlawful for a ruling authority [ḥākim]—even in non-foodstuffs—is to set prices due to the report, ‘Do not set prices, for indeed Allāh is the price-setter.’ It is not unlawful to sell contrary to it [i.e. his order or his set prices], however, the ruling authority may carry out disciplinary punishment [taʿzīr] on whoever contradicts if it reaches him for disobeying, i.e. for disrupting social order… so it is a disciplinary punishment for a matter that is permissible”
As I understand it, this very last part to refer to the permissibility of contradicting the unlawful order. Al-Birmāwī reiterates this in the following passage (4c):
بَلْ كُلُّ ما لَيْسَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ يَجِبُ بِأمْرِهِ ولَوْ مُباحًا ولا تَجِبُ طاعَتُهُ فِي الأمْرِ بِالمَعْصِيَةِ لَكِنْ يُعَزَّرُ مَن خالَفَهُ لِشِقِّ العَصا ولا يَجِبُ شَيْءٌ عَلى الإمامِ بِأمْرِهِ لِأنَّ المُتَكَلِّمَ لا يَدْخُلُ فِي عُمُومِ كَلامِهِ ويَبْعُدُ إيجابُ الشَّخْصِ شَيْئًا عَلى نَفْسِهِ
“…rather everything that is not sinful is obligatory by his command—even neutral [mubāh] acts. It is not obligatory to obey him in a command to sin. However, whoever contradicts him is subject to a disciplinary punishment [taʿzīr] for disrupting social order. Nothing [of what the Imām commands] is obligatory upon the Imām by his order since the speaker does not enter within the general inclusivity of his own words, and it is far-fetched to obligate something upon himself.”
4b Source(s): Al-Bujayramī’s notes on Zakariyā al-Anṣārī’s Fatḥ al-wahhāb. There are slightly shorter versions in al-Jamal’s notes on Zakariyā al-Anṣārī’s Fatḥ al-wahhāb; and in al-Qalyūbī’s notes on al-Maḥallī’s Kanz al-rāghibīn.
4c Source(s): Al-Jamal’s notes on Zakariyā al-Anṣārī’s Fatḥ al-wahhāb.