so is this something new? maybe i don't get it, but isn't this something basic? the problem is not in the concept per se - but the pick-and-choose method. for example, witr is wajib in our (hanafi) madh'hab; sunnah in shafiyi madh'hab. one who habitually omits witr is a fasiq in our madh'hab; but one who omits witr is exercising a choice and is not frowned upon in the shafiyi madh'hab. in principle, we acknowledge the difference in furu'u. we do not do tafsiq of shafiyi omitting witr. but what do books of hanafi fiqh say concerning such a person who omits witr? do they call him a fasiq or not? similarly, if a shafiyi does not wash his nose in ghusl; or does not do wuDu after bleeding from a cut, his wuDu and salat is valid according to shafiyi furu'u. but is a hanafi permitted to pray behind him? i would ask saqib sahib to tell us whether hanafis are permitted to pray behind a shafiyi who does not do wuDu after bleeding from a cut. or take the case of zakat - is zakat due on gold ornaments or not? if a person does not give zakat on gold ornaments, what should a hanafi mufti or a self-respecting hanafi scholar say? should he say: "oh don't worry. it is not permissible to do tafsiq if you don't give zakat on ornaments. there is ikhtilaf in furu'u" consider a beginner's shafiyi fiqh book such as kifayatu'l akhyar, which recommends against praying behind a hanafi because he doesn't consider certain things (such as basmala or fatiHah) to be wajib in salah. why is such tarjih mentioned and recommendations that one should rather go to a farther mosque of one's own madh'hab than pray behind a hanafi? why this obsession on following one's madh'hab when acknowledging the right of the other madh'hab to exist? ====== following saqib shami's revolutionary appeal, are we going to purge all the books of madh'habs that call something illegal, or invalid or disliked or sinful in their own madh'hab, even though some scholar in any of the four madh'hab might have permitted it? because according to this new breed of madh'habi-liberals, the only criterion for 'acting upon madh'hab' is any opinion in any of the 4 madh'habs. ---- according to the enlightened ones among us, it is even more liberal. a common man can choose any opinion he likes after consulting the books of fiqh (or any scholar). and then he can switch back and forth among four madh'hab as much as he likes without any censure. you can pray like a shafiyi in the morning, hanafi in the noon, hanbali in the late-afternoon/asr, maliki in the maghrib prayer and back to shafiyi in isha. BUT you have to follow that madh'hab fully for that one action or set of related actions. (why? which naSS prevents you from talfiq? isn't 'following scholars' absolute?) because, it is not wajib to stick to only one of madh'habs - how can you make something wajib which Allah didn't? however, it is wajib to restrict oneself in only the four schools. but does any explicit naSS enjoins you to restrict oneself to the four schools? ==== so a book written for the common people about ikhtilaf can be fully understood only by scholars. why release it to the common public then? why was it not circulated internally among scholars for review and comments? yes, you are right. 'scholars' and 'peers' can do whatever they like, but we should not do tafsiq for things written down as fisq in fiqh books.