This view was stated by some of Ahmad’s followers. Likewise, other views mentioned by Ibn Hamdān or others may be statements of some of Ahmad’s followers, without having been expressly stated by Ahmad himself. Much of what appears in the books of the followers of al-Shāfiʿī, Mālik, and Abū Hanīfa is similarly drawn from statements of some of their followers, rather than explicit statements of the imams themselves. Indeed, the views expressly reported from them may be contrary to those statements.

The underlying question is whether a layperson must commit himself to a particular school of law, following both its stricter rulings and its concessions. There are two positions among Ahmad’s followers on this, and likewise two among the followers of al-Shāfiʿī. The majority in both groups do not consider this obligatory. Those who do consider it obligatory say that once someone commits himself to a school, he may not depart from it so long as he remains committed to it, or unless it becomes clear to him that another school is more deserving of his commitment.

There is no doubt that if someone commits himself to a school of law or departs from it for a nonreligious reason—for example, committing himself to a school to obtain some worldly advantage, such as wealth, prestige, or the like—he deserves no praise for this. Rather, he is in fact blameworthy, even if the position he adopts is better than the one he leaves. He is like someone who embraces Islam solely for a worldly purpose, or migrates from Mecca to Medina for a woman he wishes to marry or some worldly gain he hopes to obtain.

During the Prophet’s lifetime, a man migrated for the sake of a woman called Umm Qays, and so he became known as “the migrant for Umm Qays.” The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said from the pulpit, as reported in the authentic hadith: “Deeds are judged only