and attending listening sessions—and he believes that this person should be shunned and censured. Yet when his friend does the same, he considers it a matter open to independent legal reasoning for which no censure is warranted. Someone of this kind, who allows his own desires to determine whether he regards something as lawful or forbidden, obligatory or no longer binding, is blameworthy for his departure and forfeits his standing as an upright person. Ahmad and others explicitly stated that this is impermissible.

If, however, something becomes clear to him that warrants preferring one opinion over another—whether through detailed evidence, if he knows and understands it, or because he considers one of two scholars more knowledgeable about that particular issue and more mindful of Allah in what he says—and he changes his opinion for such a reason, then this is permissible; indeed, it is obligatory. Imam Ahmad explicitly stated this.

What Ibn Hamdān mentioned refers to the first category. Hence his statement:

“Anyone who commits himself to a school of law is to be censured for departing from it without evidence, reliance on a scholarly authority, or a valid excuse under Islamic law.”

This indicates that he is not to be censured if he departs from it because of evidence that has made the stronger opinion clear to him; because he follows a scholarly authority whom he may legitimately follow in holding a contrary view; or because of a valid excuse under Islamic law that permits an otherwise prohibited act to which such an excuse applies.

There is a second issue that one might think he intended, though he did not. Nevertheless, we shall discuss it on the assumption that he intended it: namely, that whoever commits himself to a school of law may not depart from it.