The guide (murshid) instructing the novice (murid) at the formative period of the path (al-tariq) – will and should advocate taking the stricter opinion (‘azima) in their own school at least, and even more than that, the strictest opinion, beyond their own school. That is recommended (mandub) if in the service of their tarbiya (spiritual training).
Indeed, in this, they would be following an analogous general rule to be followed by the Shafi’i jurist (faqih), and other scholars, when advising to the student of knowledge (talib al-‘ilm): that to abandon the dispensation (rukhsa) is better, though not mandatory. And that to follow the stricter way (‘azima) is preferable (mandub), though it is not reprehensible (makruh) to follow the dispensation (rukhsa).
But even so, there might be different considerations to be kept in mind.
[The below should take for given that any mixing and matching between the schools that would mean the final outcome would not be valid to any school, in a single action, is impermissible and forbidden. So, for example: only wetting a strand of hair, as per the Shafi’is, in wudu’, but touching one’s wife, which would break wudu’ according to the Shafi’is. This wouldn’t work, despite the fact Hanafis allow the touching, because they insist on much more than the strand of hair. The wudu’ must be valid according to at least one of the schools; even if the ablution on its own is valid only according to the Hanafis, and the prayer on its own is valid only according to the Shafi’is, that would work, because although the two actions (ablution and prayer) are linked, they are not a single act. And Allah knows best.]
Firstly, the jurist – and this is known among our Shafi’i fuqaha – will be obliged to recommend taking a dispensation (rukhsa) in order to avoid a difference of opinion with another school. So, for example, shortening the prayer on a journey, as the Hanafis insist this is compulsory (wajib) to do, even though the Shafi’is see it as a dispensation. But on a more contextual level – the mufti – i.e., the jurist that is being called upon to offer an opinion that is simultaneously conversant with a particular context – may decide a dispensation (rukhsa) or a stricter opinion (azima) is appropriate given the particular circumstances at hand, irrespective of what an abstract understanding of what is better might be.
But more than that – when it comes to the Sufis in particular – and this is certainly the understanding of the likes of Shadhulis such as Imam al-Sh’arani – the elite (khassa) will be told to uphold the stricter opinions (aza’im) for themselves – whereas the khassat al-khassa – i.e., those who are in an advanced stage of the path – are told to choose the dispensations (rukhas). Why? Because at a certain stage, the spiritual wayfarer is testing their lower selves by taking the harder path – but at a later stage, the spiritual wayfarer is being habituated to the notion that all of these are from God, and thus they should treat the differences between them, at least, as inconsequential. If anything, the way of ease is going to be the final way anyway – for in Paradise, there will be no hardship. And actually, Imam al-Sha’rani encourages the taking of dispensations (rukhas) at this stage, because at this stage, the spiritual wayfarer has already come to the realisation that all the different opinions – be they the strict ones or dispensations – all come from the revealed sources, and are thus are all valid, and there should be any feeling of elevating oneself into a position of deciding that being strict is going to be more ‘pious’. Rather, if the rukhsa is valid – and it is – and one has come to the position of not being affected one way or the other by a rukhsa over an azima, then it is actually better to return to the asl, and that is to abandon hardship.
As Imam al-Sha’rani says: “the ‘alim (scholar) who follows the principle of aleviating hardship adheres to the ‘asl (original state) to which mankind ultimately will arrive when in paradise, whereas the ‘alim who imposes hardship adheres to an accidental condition that will end with the end of being in a state of taklif (called upon to adhere to the law).” In another place, Imam al-Sha’rani says: “And the people of kashf (unveiling) said: the asl (original principle) is the absence of imposing hardship (tahjir) for this is the condition to which mankind ultimately will arrive in paradise. This is why alleviating hardship is in accordance with the original principle, whereas imposing hardship runs counter to it.”
On a practical level, what does this mean? It means: study a madhhab, as a base line — and then treat all the schools as ‘one’, with the different opinions as simply a range from the strict (azima) to the dispensation (rukhsa).
