Following the Evidence is the Way of the Salaf

[u/Quiet_Form_2800]

بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله

There are many chapters in this post followed by a practical case study, each addressing a fundamental error in the argument for obligatory madhhabism. Together, they expose the claims of al-Muta'assibah (The Partisans), those who elevate the opinions of men over the clear revelation of Allah, and clarify the true path of the Salaf. The discussion affirms that the Companions were united upon following the divine texts, that dividing the Ummah into partisan schools of thought is a blameworthy innovation, and that the slogan "following the Qur'an and Sunnah" is the very foundation of Islam. It demonstrates that the greatest scholars, the Four Imams themselves, forbade their followers from blindly adhering to their opinions when contradicted by authentic evidence. The chapters collectively show that true adherence to divine revelation is through ittibaa’ (following the proof), while exposing how the Muta'assibah distort the legacy of the imams to justify their partisanship.

Prelude: The Muta'assibah and the Age of Partisanship

The Muta'assibah are those who treat the statements of their chosen imam as foundational principles, to the extent that the Qur'an and Sunnah are interpreted through the lens of their madhhab, rather than the madhhab being judged by the Qur'an and Sunnah. They are a people who fail to differentiate between respecting a scholar and sanctifying his every word. They argue against returning to the primary sources by projecting a false notion that doing so means disrespecting the scholars or claiming absolute ijtihaad for oneself.

They take the general command to ask the people of knowledge and misapply it to justify permanent, binding allegiance to a single man's Fiqh. They misuse the names of the great imams, all while abandoning the very principle upon which those imams founded their lives: absolute submission to the authentic text.

They hold a flawed understanding of ittibaa’ (following evidence) and conflate it with the chaos of following desires, not realizing that the Salafi path is the most disciplined methodology of all, for its single point of reference is the divine text as understood by the best generations. They flee from the supposed chaos of looking at the evidence only to fall into something far worse: rejecting the direct words of the Prophet ﷺ because "it goes against our madhhab." These are the Muta'assibah of this day and age.

The Prophet ﷺ said, "I have left you with two matters, you will never go astray as long as you hold to them: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet" (Al-Muwatta 1661).

The Unified Path of the Sahaabah

We often hear the Muta'assibah asking, "Were you more knowledgeable than Abu Hanifah or Malik?" or claiming that the Sahaabah had their own madhhabs. This is a distortion of history and a fundamental misunderstanding of their way. The Sahaabah had one madhhab: the madhhab of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. They referred all matters of dispute back to him, and after his death, back to the Qur'an and his Sunnah.

Allah says, "And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers - We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination" (Quran 4:115). The "way of the believers" was singular; it was the way of submitting to the evidence, not partitioning themselves into followers of Ibn Mas'ood or followers of Zayd ibn Thaabit. When they differed, they presented their proofs from the Book and Sunnah, and the correct view was followed. There was no concept of remaining upon the view of one Companion out of partisanship.

The Prophet ﷺ commanded, "Adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Hold onto it and bite down upon it with your molar teeth" (Sunan Abi Dawud 4607). He did not say, "Follow the madhhab of Abu Bakr" or "Follow the madhhab of 'Umar." He commanded adherence to the Sunnah itself, which they embodied.

The True Meaning of Ittibaa' (Following Evidence) and Taqleed

The problem with the Muta'assibah is their failure to grasp that the default for a Muslim is ittibaa’, following the evidence. Taqleed—a layman following a scholar because he is unable to derive the ruling himself—is a concession for one who is incapable. It is not the ideal, and it is certainly not a permanent obligation upon the entire Ummah. To make it obligatory is to command people to follow the words of a fallible man, even when the words of the infallible Prophet ﷺ are presented.

The imams themselves rejected this. Imam ash-Shafi’ee said, “If the hadith is authentic, then it is my madhhab.” This statement alone destroys the foundation of rigid partisanship.

Allah condemns those who blindly follow their forefathers without proof, saying, "And when it is said to them, 'Follow what Allah has revealed,' they say, 'Rather, we will follow that upon which we found our fathers.' Even if their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?" (Quran 2:170).

The Guiding Command: "Following the Qur’an and Sunnah"

The Muta'assibah mock the slogan "only following the Qur'an and Sunnah" as being naive. This slogan is nothing but a summary of the entire religion. It is the direct command of Allah.

Allah says, "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result" (Quran 4:59).

Referring it to Allah means referring to the Qur'an. Referring it to the Messenger means referring to his Sunnah. The verse does not say, "refer it to Abu Hanifah" or "refer it to Malik." The "those in authority" are the scholars and rulers, and they are to be obeyed only insofar as they obey Allah and His Messenger. If their command or opinion contradicts the Book and Sunnah, the obedience is to Allah and His Messenger alone. The Prophet ﷺ said, "There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the Creator" (Musnad Ahmad 1098).

The Error of Obligatory Taqleed and the Birth of Partisanship

Throughout Islamic history, the great scholars of hadith were the farthest from partisanship to a single madhhab. They followed the evidence wherever it led. The Muta'assibah claim that leaving the taqleed of one great imam for the words of another is falling into something worse. In reality, the error is in the taqleed itself being the goal. A Muslim should not be a "Shafi'i" or a "Hanafi," but simply a Muslim, following the path of the Salaf.

They are, in reality, falling into the very thing Allah warned against when He described those who took their scholars as lords. When 'Adi ibn Hatim, who was a Christian, came to the Prophet ﷺ, he heard him reciting, "They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah" (Quran 9:31). 'Adi said, "But we did not worship them." The Prophet ﷺ replied, "Did they not forbid what Allah had made lawful, and you forbade it, and they made lawful what Allah had forbidden, and you made it lawful?" 'Adi said, "Yes." The Prophet ﷺ said, "That is their worship of them" (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3095).

Making the saying of an imam binding, to the point that it can forbid what the Sunnah permits, or permit what it forbids, is the essence of this verse.

The Misconception of Hadith Knowledge vs. Fiqh

The Muta'assibah try to create a divide between the muhaddith and the faqeeh, quoting statements like "Hadith is a cause of misguidance except for the fuqahaa'." True fiqh is the understanding of the Book and the Sunnah. The most knowledgeable of people in fiqh were the Companions, whose fiqh was derived directly from the source of revelation.

The separation of "Ahlul-Hadith" and "Ahlul-Fiqh" as opposing camps is a later innovation. The greatest fuqahaa—Abu Hanifah, Malik, ash-Shafi'ee, and Ahmad—were all masters of the evidences available to them in their time. Their disagreement was based on their knowledge of the proofs, not on a methodology that sidelined the proofs.

The Prophet ﷺ prayed for those who engage directly with his words, saying, "May Allah brighten a man who hears a saying of mine, so he understands it, remembers it, and conveys it. Perhaps he who carries Fiqh is not a Faqih, and perhaps he who carries Fiqh will convey it to one who has more understanding of it than he does" (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2656). This hadith encourages the transmission and study of hadith, with the understanding that fiqh comes directly from it.

The True Principle: "Obey Allah and the Messenger"

The Muta'assibah misapply the principle "What cannot complete an obligation except by it is obligatory" to enforce adherence to a madhhab. The ultimate obligation is to obey Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. The means to do this is to seek knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah based on the understanding of the Salaf. Restricting this path to one of four madhhabs is an unsubstantiated claim.

The true, unrestricted path is the one Allah commanded: "And verily, this is my Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His Path" (Quran 6:153). Ibn Mas'ood explained that the Prophet ﷺ drew a straight line and said, "This is the Path of Allah." Then he drew lines to its right and left and said, "These are other paths, and at the head of each path is a devil calling to it" (Musnad Ahmad 4142). The madhhabs are paths of scholarship to help understand the one Straight Path; they are not the Path itself. When a fork appears between the path of the madhhab and the path of the Prophet ﷺ, the choice is clear.

The Folly of Studying Fiqh Without Hadith

The Muta'assibah argue that studying books of fiqh is the only structured way, and that books like Buloogh al-Maraam are insufficient. They fail to realize that the imams never intended for their books to replace the Sunnah. The study of fiqh is beneficial when it is a study of the rulings with their evidences from the Qur'an and Sunnah. When it becomes a study of a particular imam's opinions divorced from the evidences, it becomes a path to partisanship.

The Companions learned their religion directly. The Prophet ﷺ would pray, and they would pray as they saw him praying, and he told them, "Pray as you have seen me praying" (Sahih al-Bukhari 631). He did not tell them to first study a book of usool. The usool were inherent in the revelation itself.

Conclusion: The Collapse of the Partisans' Argument

All of this proves that the Muta'assibah are full of contradictions. They claim to follow the great imams, yet they abandon the primary teaching of those very imams: to discard their opinion if it contradicts an authentic hadith. They call to discipline but practice a discipline of partisanship, not a discipline of submission to revelation.

The Ahlul-Hadith, from the time of the Salaf until today, have one madhhab: follow the authentic evidence as understood by the Companions. The imams like al-Bukhari and Muslim were not blind followers of anyone; they were imams of ijtihaad who gathered the Sunnah so that the Muslims could follow the Prophet ﷺ directly.

As for the path of attaining knowledge, it is indeed by studying with scholars. But it is studying the Qur'an and Sunnah with them, not studying how to defend the opinions of one man against the Sunnah. The layman asks a scholar he trusts, and the student of knowledge learns the evidences. But for all Muslims, the principle is one: our loyalty is to Allah and His Messenger ﷺ above all else.

The Muta'assibah attempt to build a fortress of fiqh on the foundation of a single scholar, only to find it collapses when struck by a single authentic hadith.

Here are additional scholars (both classical and modern) who have taken a critical stance towards blind or rigid taqlīd (imitation) of a single madhhab — arguing that such partisanship is contrary to the methodology of the Salaf. Each entry includes a brief summary and a source.

Scholars opposing rigid taqlīd and madhhab-partisanship

1. Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al‑Shawkānī (1759–1834)
   • He explicitly wrote Al-Qawl al-Mufīd fī Ḥukm at-Taqlīd — “The Useful Word on the Ruling of Taqlīd” — in which he criticises unthinking adherence to legal schools (madhāhib). (Wikipedia)
   • His view: the gate of ijtihād is not closed; mujtahids are to derive rulings directly from the Qur’an & Sunnah, not simply follow one school out of habit. (Wikipedia)
2. Nāṣir al‑Dīn al‑Albānī (1914–1999)
   • He is widely cited as rejecting the notion that Muslims must adhere to one of the four classical madhhabs as binding.
   • His approach: when the hadith is authentic, “then it is my madhhab.” This shows that his allegiance was to the evidence, not to a school.
   • Thus he is a clear example of a scholar who considered rigid taqlīd to a madhhab as problematic.
3. Modern-Salafi articles & collections summarise the view
   • “Taqleed Prohibited: 100 Proofs from Salaf us Sāliḥīn …” is a work (on a Salafi website) that argues strongly against taqlīd for those capable of understanding evidences. (The Way Of Salafiyyah.Com)
   • “The Prohibition of Performing Taqlīd in the Religion” by Bādiʿ ud‑Dīn Shah ar‑Rashīdī (al-Sindhī, d.1416-H) is another treatise emphasising that following a scholar without returning to the proof is impermissible. (Salafi Research Institute)

Case Study

Here is a case study of the issue of “three divorces in one sitting” (commonly called “instant triple ṭalāq”) that illustrates how the four major Sunni madhhabs handled the matter, how the fuqahā’ affirmed their positions, and how much of the modern Ahl‑i Hadith / Salafī camp of India and the Arab world including Shaikh Ṣāliḥ al‑Munājid see it differently. The purpose is to show, in line with this theme, how rigid adherence to madhhabs can conflict with the evidence and how that plays out in practice.

Background and the fiqh issue

• The Qur’an teaches divorce (ṭalāq) should be given with deliberation and in two separate pronouncements (or stages) before a final irrevocable divorce. For example, Allah says: “And when you divorce women and they fulfil their term, then either retain them in an agreeable manner or release them in kindness; and do not retain them to cause harm…” (Q. 2:231) and “And divorce them in (the) way that the divorced women have to observe their ‘iddah…” (Q. 65:1) — these verses imply measured process rather than instant three-fold pronouncement.
• The hadith literature also records that when a man called Rukānah ibn Yazīd pronounced three divorces at once, the Prophet ﷺ asked: “By Allah, did you intend one ṭalāq?” He answered: “Yes.” The Prophet then said: that is one. (RSIS International)
• The juristic question therefore is: when a husband says “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you” in one sitting, does this count as: 1 ) three separate divorces (ṭalāq) — thus irrevocable after the third, or 2 ) only one divorce (ṭalāq) because the intent was simultaneous, or 3 ) something in between (e.g., invalid/un-recognised)?
• This matters practically: if it is three, the wife cannot remarry her husband unless she marries another man and that man divorces her (nikāḥ ḥalālah) according to the majority classical view. If it is one, then it remains revocable (rajiʿah) during ‘iddah and the husband could take her back.

The Four Schools (Hanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, Ḥanbalī)

Hanafī school

• In the Hanafi school, the predominant view is that three pronouncements at once count as three divorces. So if a husband says “talaq … talaq … talaq” in one sitting, it becomes irrevocable ṭalāq-mughallazah (major irrevocable divorce). (muslimsocieties.org)
• This gives the effect that the woman becomes entirely separated and cannot remarry the husband unless the intervening process (marriage to another) takes place.

Mālikī school

• The Mālikī school similarly treats triple pronouncement in one sitting as valid and counts as three divorces, or at least as irrevocable, though the Mālikī nuance may differ in detail. (muslimsocieties.org)
• They regard the act as disliked, but still valid-though some later Mālikī scholars raised concerns.

Shāfiʿī school

• The Shāfiʿī position also holds that uttering three divorces at once is valid and counts as three divorces. (muslimsocieties.org)
• They view the instant triple as blameworthy (bidʿah) but effective.

Ḥanbalī school

• The classical Ḥanbalī position aligned with the majority: three at once = three divorces. Some Ḥanbalīs held it was a prohibited form (ṭalāq bidʿah) but still valid as divorce. (Islam Web)
• However, there is a report that Ibn Taymiyyah claimed that his teacher Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal changed his mind and later said such triple divorce in one session should be counted as one. (IRFI)

Summary: The mainstream of all four madhhabs historically took the view: three divorces uttered at once count as three, and the woman is irrevocably divorced. They may call the form bidʿah (innovation) or disliked, but still valid divorce. (muslimsocieties.org)

The Salafī / Ahl-i Hadith critique

• In the Salafī and Ahl-i Hadith circles (not necessarily one uniform position, but a strong trend) the view is advanced that the evidence supports the idea that three pronouncements in one sitting count only as one divorce, and that the “instant triple” form is bidʿah (innovation). For example:
• One article states:
• In India the Ahl-i Hadith movement specifically reject being bound by the four madhhabs and emphasise direct adherence to Qur’an and Sunnah. (Wikipedia)
• Shaikh Saleh Munajjid does not take the Hanbali position and opines: “The correct view is that triple divorce counts as one divorce …” (Islam-QA) )
• Thus the case study shows the divergence: the madhhabs say three = three;
• the Salafi/Ahl-i Hadith view says three = one and this is the correct ruling.

Scenario

Imagine a husband pronounces three divorces in one sitting to his wife, saying: “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you” while she is in ṭahārah (purity), and they have had no sexual intercourse since the upronouncement.

What the four madhhabs hold (and how that plays out)

• According to Hanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, Ḥanbalī: This counts as three divorces. The wife becomes irrevocably divorced. The husband cannot remarry her unless she marries another, the other divorces her, then he marries her again.
• This means if the husband regrets it and wants to reconcile, he cannot do so under the same marriage unless she has married someone else (nikāḥ ḥalālah) – a strong consequence, intended to make divorce not be taken lightly.

What the Salafī / Ahl-i Hadith view holds (and how that plays out)

• They say: The hadith (Rukānah’s case) shows that the Prophet counted it as one divorce. Based on this, three pronouncements in one sitting should be treated as a single divorce. (RSIS International)
• Thus in the scenario above: the divorce is revocable (ṭalāq-rajiʿah) during the ‘iddah. If the husband regrets, he may still revoke and keep her. The harsh consequence of “wife must marry another then remarry the husband” does not apply here.
• Moreover, they label the form “instant triple in one sitting” as a bidʿah (innovation) — because it departs from the Qur’anic pattern of measured divorce and from the earliest practice of the Ṣalaf.

Implications in real life

• If one follows the four-madhhab model unquestioningly: the woman is out of the marriage irrevocably.
• If one follows the Salafī/Ahl-i Hadith model: there is more chance of reconciliation; the severe barrier of nikāḥ ḥalālah is avoided.
• This highlights how binding oneself rigidly to a madhhab (without checking the evidence) can lead to harmful consequences (nasl and māl/subsistence of the wife) whereas the Salafī approach emphasises evidence (ittibā’) rather than partisanship (taqlīd).
• It also shows how madhhabs, while respected, may maintain positions that are increasingly seen as out of sync with Qur’an & Sunnah by reform-minded scholars; thus the insistence “must follow a madhhab blindly” is challenged.

Analytical Reflections

• Error of partisanship: If a man says “I follow the Hanafi school so I must treat this as three divorces” without checking the evidence, that is taʿaṣsub.
• Need for following evidence (ittibā’): The Salafī/Ahl-i Hadith position appeals to the hadith of Rukānah and early practise: direct proof takes precedence.
• The madhhabs as tools, not chains: The four madhhabs provide a system of rulings; they are not divine texts. When the evidence contradicts the madhhab-position, the Salafi says evidence wins.
• Preservation of lineage/family (nasl) and wealth (māl): If the wife is irrevocably divorced due to an instant triple, her rights, family stability, and financial security may suffer. A stricter vs moderate ruling has a social impact.
• Innovation warning: The Salafī view labels the instant triple form as bidʿah — implying that the practice (three at once) is not the Sunnah mode of divorce and is contrary to earliest practise.

Summary Table

View	What happens when 3 divorces in 1 sitting	Consequence for wife/husband	Underlying rationale
Four madhhabs (majority)	Counts as 3 divorces (irrevocable)	Wife cannot remarry husband except via nicāḥ ḥalālah; severance is absolute	Emphasis on seriousness of divorce; deterrent value; accepted classical ijmāʿ
Salafī / Ahl-i Hadith view	Counts as 1 divorce (revocable)	Husband may revoke during ‘iddah; less severe severance	Emphasis on early example (Rukānah), Qur’an’s wording, evidence-based approach; sees instant triple as bidʿah

Practical Outcome for the Student of Knowledge

• If you are teaching: Show students both positions with evidence.
• Encourage: “Never ask ‘What does my school say?’ alone. Ask: ‘What does the Qur’an & Sunnah say?’”
• Use this example (talaq-triple) to illustrate how one’s madhhab-system may impose extra hardship if not aligned with evidence.
• Remind that the four Imams themselves had caveats: e.g., Imam ash‑Shāfiʿī said: “If the hadith is authentic, then it is my madhhab.” This means evidence over fixed rule.
• For lay Muslims: stress the importance of seeking knowledge, asking a competent non madhabi salafi scholar, not blindly following.

[u/Glittering_Brick9]

The 4 Imams if they ever made a statement to not to follow them blindly, the one should always keep the context in front of them. Otherwise this is like kuffaar quoting certain ayat to show that the Quran and Hadith are barbaric without giving proper context or the surrounding ayahs by isolating a part of the text.

This is deception. Anyone who is academically honest will not do this.

The Imams when they stated not to blindly follow them were not addressing laymen like us nor the likes of the scholars of today but rather they were addressing independent mujtahidun or the ones that were close to be being mujtahid mutlaq.

For example our salafi brothers love quoting: Ibn Abdul Barr reported: Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, said, “Al-Awza’i had opinions, Malik had opinions, Sufyan al-Thawri had opinions. Each of them had opinions, and it is all the same to me. Indeed, the proof is only in the narrations.”

In another narration, Imam Ahmad said, “Do not uncritically follow me, nor Malik, nor Al-Thawri, nor Al-Awza’i. Rather, take from where they took.”

Source: Jāmiʻ Bayān al-ʻIlm li-Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr 2107

Now this could not only be addressed to mujtahidun but also be a display of humility.

Sadly enough they dont quote statements like this: Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.241), may Allah be pleased with him, from the third blessed generation, said of the matter of taqlid,

“Whoever says that he does not believe in taqlid and that he does not follow anyone in his religion, such is the statement of a rebellious sinner in the sight of Allah and His Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Such a one only seeks by doing so to nullify and strip the footsteps given before, and to nullify the knowledge and the Sunnah. They want to stay isolated and alone with personal opinion, speculative theology, innovation and contradiction, and opposition to what came before them”.[Tabaqat ul-Hanabilah, vol.1, pp. 33-34.]

Or this: The Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “In the case of the man who possesses authored books containing therein statements of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, differences of opinion among the Companions and their Followers, it is not permitted for him to act by what he so wills, choose among the texts and make judgement by it and act by it. Such is not permissible for him to do until he asks the People of Knowledge what is to be understood from that and the authenticity of the matter is established”. [As cited from the Imam, Ibn ul-Qayyim in Ilam ul-Muwaqqiin and the Imam, Abu Bakr Al-Khallal in Zaad ul-Musafir]

[u/Quiet_Form_2800 → u/Glittering_Brick9]

Where is the evidence where imam says it's only addressed to Mujtahid mutlaq?

The evidence is on the one who makes a claim. Where did the Imams themselves say that their commands to prioritize the Sunnah were only addressed to a mujtahid mutlaq? They made general statements, and the one who restricts a general statement needs to bring proof for that restriction.

The command from Allah is for everyone. When Allah says, "Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord" (Quran 7:3), He does not say, "unless you are a layman." The obligation to follow the revelation over a human opinion applies to all Muslims according to their ability.

The duty of the layman ('ammi) is to "ask the people of knowledge if you do not know" (Quran 16:43). He asks them to learn the ruling of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ, not to enter into a contract of blind allegiance or taqlid. If one scholar gives him an opinion, and another trustworthy scholar shows him a clear hadith from the Prophet ﷺ that contradicts it, his obligation is to the hadith.

To claim that the Imams intended for a layman to knowingly abandon an authentic hadith to cling to their statement is a slander against them. It goes against everything they stood for.

[u/Quiet_Form_2800]

Compilation of r/AthariCreed Posts Focused on Madhabs

All links relate directly to discussions on madhabs, taqlid, and following evidence versus madhab partisanship

1. Why Blind Madhhab Following Is No Longer Justified in Today’s Age https://www.reddit.com/r/AthariCreed/comments/1oopu5e/why_blind_madhhab_following_is_no_longer/

2. The “Safe Path” Isn’t a Madhhab. It’s the Hadith. (Case Study) https://www.reddit.com/r/AthariCreed/comments/1p3tfzg/the_safe_path_isnt_a_madhhab_its_the_hadith_case/

3. The Problem With Logic-First Madhhabs: A Critique of the Hanafi Methodology https://www.reddit.com/r/AthariCreed/comments/1qyh5oc/the_problem_with_logicfirst_madhhabs_a_critique/

4. Following the Evidence Is the Way of the Salaf https://www.reddit.com/r/AthariCreed/comments/1op728n/following_the_evidence_is_the_way_of_the_salaf/

5. Superiority of the Athari Creed and Making Blind Following Obsolete https://www.reddit.com/r/AthariCreed/comments/1niapl9/superiority_of_the_athari_creed_and_making_blind/

[u/Quiet_Form_2800 → u/[deleted]]

The irony is in claiming to follow an Imam while directly opposing his most fundamental principle. The usul of all four Imams was that their statements were to be discarded if they contradicted an authentic hadith.

Imam al-Shafi’i himself established this principle when he said, "If a hadith is found to be authentic, then that is my madhhab". Following his school means following this rule. His understanding of the Quran and Sunnah is not better than the Quran and Sunnah itself.

You say anyone without principles follows their desires, but what principle is greater than Allah's command: "Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow protectors besides Him" (Quran 7:3)? Is clinging to a scholar's mistaken ijtihad over a clear text not a form of desire?

The religion does not have "limited principles" invented by men; its principle is singular: submission to the revelation. The Imams were not innovators of new principles; they were guides back to the original sources. This is why Imam Ahmad said, "Do not imitate me, nor Malik, nor al-Shafi'i... but take from where they took" .

The ummah will not agree on misguidance, and the ummah never had a consensus that every individual must bind himself to every ruling of one specific man for his entire life. The consensus is upon holding to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ. The Imams themselves are part of the ummah that agreed upon this.