Shaykh Ahmad An-Najjar said, “The incorrect principle of saying “We have heard and we obey absolutely” is also non-conformant to the objectives of the Shariah (Islamic law). This is because it contradicts the notion of all Muslims being united under the word of truth in complete agreement.
Rather, this convention calls towards the brewing of division, enmity and hatred amongst the Muslims.
It is also non-conformant to the general principles of religion like loyalty to the truth and disassociation with falsehood whereupon both these principles become the object of opinion of individuals and are not associated with the reality of truth in any way.
This results in adherence to error; because individual scholars are not
Therefore, no one has the right to appoint a fallible person as their own master and pledge their absolute obedience unto him, even if [it is] for a single religious subject – because only those who are infallible can be obeyed absolutely.
When absolute obedience for a Companion [of the prophet] is objectionable, how would the absolute obedience of one who is below the rank of a Companion be [acceptable]?!
It is necessary for a Muslim to seek the truth, not men and their opinions only, even if it is assumed that they speak with proofs. This is because cross-checking the soundness of their proofs cannot be achieved by merely believing in them blindly.
Similarly, one who would seek proofs for himself would come to know all that is lost on him in all that is commonly presented and he shall be able to break free from the limited information that is available to him. This is with regard to absolute obedience; even if that is with regard to one religious subject.
As for mandating the conformation of one specific person or a limited group of specific people, that is not permissible. This is because individual scholars have the scope to err and one cannot be followed in error.
Also this is in contradiction with the objectives of the Shariah because it opposes the easement that has been granted in the practicing of religion and the gathering of all Muslims united under the word of truth in complete agreement.
Absolute obedience of individual scholars puts a Muslim into difficulty by making him strictly adhere to the opinions of specific persons who issue fatwas on behalf of all Muslims.
This is in addition to [making this individual scholars fatwas and opinions] binding upon them [where as in reality when it comes to fatwas and scholarly opinions] there has to be scope to accommodate a difference of opinion [between the scholars]. This [making it binding upon individuals to follow a single scholars fatwas and opinions] is to limit something that is vastly available [i.e. following of different scholars fatwas and opinions on different issues] and mandating something upon the people which is not mandatory.
Hence this [understanding] is contrary to the actions and approach of the Companions, the [immediate] followers [of the Companions] and the Imams [of the deen]. The Imams of the four schools of jurisprudence [Hanafi, Shafiʿi, Maliki and Hanbali] did not view their opinions to be binding.
Umar bin ʿAbd al-Aziz said, ‘It would have been unfortunate had the Companions of the Prophet not differed in their opinions, for if they were unanimous regarding a matter and were then opposed by any individual, the latter would be deemed misguided. On the contrary, if they differed, and one man followed one opinion [based on evidences] and the other one followed another [opinion based on evidences], the matter would become commodious [spacious – difference of opinion regrading that matter would be tolerated].’
This incorrect principle calls towards the brewing of division, enmity and hatred among Muslims. When establishing partisanship (bigoted hizbiyyah) with a [single] Companion at the expense of others is objectionable, how would the partisanship of one who is below the rank of Companion be?!..”
Ref: abuasmaa12.blogspot.co.uk via Salafibayaan.com
Posted by Abdul Kareem Ibn Ozzie