*The Problem with Lā-Madhhabī Thought* A challenging phenomenon that arises from the viewpoint of those who claim that following one of the four established schools of jurisprudence—Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī & Ḥanbalī—is misguidance (ḍalāl) or an innovation (bidʿah) is that this viewpoint implies that every Muslim should formulate an independent legal opinion for every ruling. This, eventually, risks blurring the line between the roles of laypersons and scholars in Islam. Their expectation that every Muslim should formulate independent views undermines expertise and scholarly traditions. It seeks to elevate laypeople to the status of scholars and reduce scholars to that of laypersons. The intricate structure of jurisprudence (fiqh) demands exhaustive training and deep understanding, which should not be reasonably expected from every individual. Muslim communities navigate their obligations and recommendations much more healthily if they have the option to follow scholars, known as taqlīd. Proponents of this view have made lives difficult and, consequently, they have seen very little success in promoting it among the public, which—in my humble opinion—also reflects resistance to the tradition structured by Sunnī scholars for centuries. If someone says to you, “There is no such thing as a madhhab!” or “Was the Prophet ﷺ a Shāfiʿī or Ḥanbalī?!” or “Taqlīd is shirk!” you can respectfully ignore that person. Your life will be much easier in following the vast majority of scholars who believe in the permissibility of following a scholar without formulating your own personal view on every single legal issue.