Summary
Definition of Taqlid
Taqlid is accepting the statement of another person without proof, and the one who does this is not counted among the ulama by agreement. Ibn ʿAbd al Barr said that knowledge is “clear explanation” and seeing the matter as it truly is, so when something becomes clear, it is known. He then said, “the muqallid (blind follower) has no knowledge”, and there was no disagreement on this. “Jamiʿ Bayan al ʿIlm wa Fadlihi” 2/992.
Al Shawkani linked the word taqlid to “qaladah (necklace)”, meaning the muqallid places the ruling of the mujtahid (one who derives rulings) around his neck like a necklace. He then defined it technically as “acting upon the statement of another without proof”. “Irshad al Fuhul” 2/239.
The Muqallid is not a Faqih
Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymin explained why the one who repeats rulings without their proofs is not a faqih. He used “maʿrifah (recognition)” rather than “ʿilm (certain knowledge)”, because fiqh is sometimes certainty and sometimes strong assumption, and not every fiqh issue reaches certainty, especially in ijtihad (independent reasoning). He also explained “ʿamaliyyah (practical)” to keep fiqh for practical rulings, not aqeedah, even though aqeedah is within the Sharia. “al Sharh al Mumtiʿ ʿala Zad al Mustaqniʿ” 1/17.
He also explained “bi adillatiha al tafsiliyyah (with its detailed evidences)” to separate fiqh from usul al fiqh (principles of fiqh), since usul al fiqh focuses on general evidences. “al Sharh al Mumtiʿ ʿala Zad al Mustaqniʿ” 1/17.
From this, he said the one who blindly follows a scholar is not a faqih, because rulings are not known with their evidences, only repeated from books, and he referred to Ibn ʿAbd al Barr for consensus on this. “Majamiʿ Bayan al ʿIlm wa Fadlih” pages 449 and 452.
Knowing the Evidence and Answering Allah
The student of knowledge is meant to take rulings with their evidences, because salvation before Allah depends on answering the messengers, not authors. The reminder used was: “What response did you give to the Messengers?” (Surah al Qasas: 65). This meaning was tied to the obligation of acting upon what the Messenger ﷺ brought, not attachment to names and books. “al Sharh al Mumtiʿ ʿala Zad al Mustaqniʿ” 1/17.
Taqlid for the Layman and Necessity
Taqlid is not treated as one ruling for every person. For the common person, taqlid is permissible, and even obligatory, because ability is limited and Allah does not burden a being beyond its capacity. The proof used was Allah’s saying:
“فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ”
“So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.” (Surah al Nahl: 43)
On this meaning, blind following in necessity is permissible, because if knowing the truth through its proof is not possible, then asking becomes required. “al Sharh al Mumtiʿ ʿala Zad al Mustaqniʿ” 1/17. Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Taqlid is like eating a dead animal”, so it is taken when forced by need, but if extracting the evidence is possible, then taqlid is not permissible. “Majamiʿ Bayan al ʿIlm wa Fadlih” page 449.
The Layman Cannot Be Burdened with Ijtihad
Al Khatib al Baghdadi recorded that “ask the people of remembrance” means the people of knowledge, through the report of ʿAmr ibn Qays. “al Faqih wa al Mutafaqqih” 2/133–135. He also quoted the claim from some of the Muʿtazilah that the layman may not act on a scholar’s statement until the evidence is known, and that asking the scholar is only to learn the method of deduction.
That was rejected as a mistake, because reaching that level requires long years of fiqh, companionship of jurists, understanding qiyas (analogy), and knowing what makes proofs stronger or weaker, so placing this on the laypeople is burdening them with what they cannot bear. “al Faqih wa al Mutafaqqih” 2/133–135.
Taqlid for the Mujtahid and the Report from Sufyan al Thawri
For the scholar who can make ijtihad, taqlid is not permissible when time and ability exist, and ijtihad is required. “al Faqih wa al Mutafaqqih” 2/133–135.
A report was mentioned from Sufyan al Thawri (d. 161AH) indicating breadth in matters where jurists differed, “Whatever the jurists have differed over, no prohibition is placed on any brother taking any of it.” The grading note attached to that report was that Rawwad ibn al Jarrah is in the chain and weakness is mentioned, though strengthened by supporting narration, so the meaning was used within that context.
Following Imams Beyond Four Madhhahib
Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that great early imams such as Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (d. 120AH), Ibn al Mubarak (d. 181AH), Sufyan al Thawri (d. 161AH), and al Awzaʿi (d. 157AH) are imams of Islam and following them is not rejected merely because their madhhahib are not among four. “Majmuʿ al Fatawa” 20/572–575.
No Qur’an or Sunnah proof differentiates between one mujtahid imam and another in permissibility of following. Two reasons were given for why some later people forbid following earlier imams: claiming their madhhab is no longer known, or claiming a later consensus formed against earlier disagreement. It was also stated that earlier disagreement remains valid and does not die with the death of the one who held it, especially for the mujtahid who finds the earlier view matches evidence. “Majmuʿ al Fatawa” by Ibn Taymiyyah 20/572–575.
What is Not Permissible in Taqlid
The blameworthy form is binding oneself to a specific madhhab in every matter, believing it is the path to Allah, then following it even when evidence opposes it. For the one with ability to examine evidences, looking into proofs and following what is believed to be correct, or closer to correctness, is permissible. “Kitab al ʿIlm” p. 153.
For the common person and the beginner student of knowledge, the duty is striving to follow the scholar believed to be closer to the truth due to knowledge, strength in religion, and taqwa (piety). “Kitab al ʿIlm” p. 153.
The Three Types of People
Three categories were set out.
The mujtahid must follow what ijtihad leads to, and taqlid is not permissible for him.
The trained student who can compare scholarly statements and evidences is not bound to a single scholar, but follows what appears stronger.
The layman who cannot weigh views must ask the people of knowledge and act upon what is said, and this is taqlid. The proof repeated here was “So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know” (Surah al Nahl: 43). “Kitab al ʿIlm” p. 153.
Taqlid, Fatwa, and Ability
Shaykh Ibn Baz said issuing fatwa through taqlid without returning to evidences is not permissible when examination is possible, and reference to proofs is required.
Taqlid was only mentioned as a concession in necessity where no mujtahid is present and no ability exists to reach the evidence, such as remote places where only a transmitter of a madhhab exists.
In that case, giving fatwa with what is understood may be permissible according to some ulama, but the foundation remains leaving taqlid when ability exists. This conclusion was tied again to (Surah al Nahl: 43).
Taqlid in Aqeedah and the Excuse of the Ignorant Muqallid
Many theologians and jurists held that everyone must examine, but Ibn Taymiyyah said the majority of the ummah are not upon this, because what is obligatory to know is only obligatory upon the one able to acquire it, and many people cannot grasp detailed evidences. “Majmuʿ al Fatawa” 20/202.
Al ʿAlai affirmed that the one unable to understand evidences yet holds firm certainty in what is required is sufficient, while the one able to understand evidence is not excused if faith is not built upon proof, and the level of proof required differs according to ability.
He also rejected the extreme claim that the faith of the muqallid is invalid, because it would invalidate the faith of most Muslims, and he also rejected forbidding any inquiry, because it would accuse the early Muslims of lacking reflection. “Fath al Bari” 13/354.
Ibn al Qayyim separated the ignorant muqallid who has no insight and no ability to learn, from the muqallid who can ask and learn but turns away.
The first is not treated like a disbeliever or sinner when inability is real, while the one able to seek guidance but neglects it is negligent and sinful, and the one shown truth but abandons it out of imitation and bias is at minimum sinful, with detail in takfir (declaring disbelief). “Tariq al Hijratayn” p. 146. He also clarified that a muqallid who had ability but turned away has no excuse with Allah. “al Turuq al Hukmiyyah” 1/464.
End of Summary
Full Article
Taqlid is accepting the statement of another without proof, and the one who does so is not considered among the Scholars by agreement.
Ibn Abd Al-Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “The People of Knowledge and Reasoning said: the definition of Knowledge is clear explanation and perceiving the known matter as it actually is. So, whoever something becomes clear to, then he has known it. They said: and the Muqallid (blind follower) has no Knowledge, and they did not differ over this.”
(Jami‘ Bayan Al-‘Ilm wa Fadlihi 2/992)
Ash-Shawkani said: “As for Taqlid, its origin in language is taken from the word ‘Qaladah’ (necklace), which one fastens upon another, like the necklace placed on the sacrificial animal. So it is as if the Muqallid made the ruling he imitated the Mujtahid in like a necklace around the neck of the one he followed.
And in technical usage: it is acting upon the statement of another without proof.” (Irshad Al-Fuhul 2/239)
Second: Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin, may Allah have mercy on him, did not prohibit Taqlid in the mentioned context, nor in other places, except for the Scholars and Students of Knowledge who understand the evidences and are able to examine them. As for the common folk, Taqlid is permissible for them, rather it is obligatory.
Shaykh Salih Al Uthaymeen said: We said: “Maʿrifah” (recognition) and not “ʿIlm” (certain knowledge) because Fiqh is either certain knowledge or assumption, and not all matters of Fiqh are matters of certainty without doubt. Many of them are matters of assumption, and this is frequent in issues of Ijtihad where a person does not reach the level of certainty. But Allah does not burden a being beyond its capacity.
So we said “Maʿrifah” to include both certain knowledge and assumption.
And we said “ʿAmaliyyah” (practical) to exclude the rulings of creed, because those are not included under the technical term “Fiqh,” even if they are included within the Sharia.
And we said “bi-adillatiha at-tafsiliyyah” (with its detailed evidences) to exclude the science of Usul al-Fiqh, because the discussion in Usul al-Fiqh concerns the general evidences of Fiqh, and sometimes it may mention a specific issue only as an example.
And it is understood from our saying “bi-adillatiha” (with its evidences) that the one who blindly follows a scholar is not a Faqih, because he does not know the rulings with their evidences. The most he does is repeat them as found in a book. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr reported consensus on this. (see: Majamiʿ Bayan al-ʿIlm wa Fadlih, pages 449 and 452)
With this, you come to know the importance of knowing the evidence, and that the student of knowledge must receive rulings along with their evidences. This is what will save him before Allah, the Exalted, because on the Day of Judgement, Allah will say to him: “What response did you give to the Messengers?” (al-Qasas, 65), and He will not say: What response did you give to such-and-such author?
So we must know what the Messengers said in order to act upon it.
However, blind following in cases of necessity is permissible, because Allah said: “Ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know” (al-Nahl, 43). So if we are unable to know the truth through its evidence, then we must ask. For this reason Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Blind following is like eating dead meat. If a person is able to extract the evidence by himself, then it is not permissible for him to blindly follow.” (see: Majamiʿ Bayan al-ʿIlm wa Fadlih, page 449)
Al-Sharh Al-Mumti‘ ‘ala Zad Al-Mustaqni‘ (1/17)
Report Of Imam Sufyan At Thawri Allowing Taqleed
As for the one for whom taqleed is permitted, it is the layman who does not know the paths to the Sharia rulings. It is permitted for him to follow a scholar and act upon his view. Allah the Exalted said, “So ask the people of remembrance if you do not know” (al-Nahl: 43).
758 – Abu al-Qasim al-Azhari (d. 370 AH) informed me, saying: Abu al-ʿAbbas Muhammad ibn Mukrim (d. 345 AH) narrated to us from dictation, saying: Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid al-Muqri’ (d. 324 AH) told us, saying: ʿAbd Allah ibn Ayyub (d. 308 AH) told us, saying: Abu Badr (possibly unknown exact death) told us, saying: I heard ʿAmr ibn Qays (d. 160 AH) say about the verse, “So ask the people of remembrance if you do not know,” that it means: the people of knowledge.
It was related from some of the Muʿtazilah that they said: it is not permissible for the layman to act by the statement of a scholar unless he knows the evidence for the ruling. And when he asks the scholar, he is only asking so that the scholar will inform him of the method for knowing the ruling. Then, once he knows it and understands it, he can act by it.
But this is a mistake, because there is no way for a layman to grasp that except after many years of studying fiqh, spending long time in the company of jurists, understanding the paths of analogy, and learning what validates and invalidates reasoning, and what evidence deserves precedence over others. To impose this upon the laypeople is to burden them with what they cannot bear and something they have no way of attaining.
As for the scholar, is it permissible for him to perform taqleed of another?
This is subject to examination. If he has sufficient time and is able to make ijtihad, then it is not allowed for him to do taqleed. Rather, he is required to seek the ruling through ijtihad.
Some of the people said that it is permissible for a scholar to perform taqleed of another scholar, and this was reported from Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161 AH).
760 – Abu al-Hasan ʿAli ibn Ahmad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ismaʿil al-Bazzar in Basrah said: Abu Bakr Yazid ibn Ismaʿil ibn ʿUmar ibn Yazid ibn Marwan al-Khallal told us, saying: al-ʿAbbas ibn ʿAbd Allah al-Taraqafi told us, saying: Rawwad ibn al-Jarrah told us, he said: I heard Sufyan At Thawri (d. 161 AH) say: “Whatever the jurists have differed over, I do not forbid any of my brothers from taking any of it.” (Hasan due to supporting narration: in the chain is Rawwad ibn al-Jarrah. Al-Hafiz said in al-Taqrib: he is truthful but his memory changed at the end of his life, so he was left. In his narrations from al-Thawri there is severe weakness. But this narration is strengthened by the one that follows it.)
Kitab al-Faqih Wa al-Mutafaqqih By Al Khatib Al Baghdadi (2/133-135)
But Taqlid in necessity is permissible, due to His saying, Exalted is He: ‘So ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know’ (Al-Nahl: 43). So if we are not able to know the truth with its evidence, we must ask. This is why Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Taqlid is like eating a dead animal. If one is able to extract the evidence himself, then it is not permissible for him to do Taqlid.”
So whoever does not know the truth through its proof must ask, meaning: he must imitate someone who is more knowledgeable than him.
And he was asked, may Allah have mercy on him: “What is obligatory upon the common person, and the one who does not have the ability to seek Knowledge?”
He replied: it is obligatory upon one who has no Knowledge and no capacity for Ijtihad to ask the People of Knowledge, due to the saying of Allah: ‘So ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know’ (Al-Anbiya: 7).
Allah only commanded that they be asked so that their statements would be followed, and this is Taqlid.
Ibn Taymiyyah says that it is allowed to follow early Imams like Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Ibn al-Mubarak, Sufyan al-Thawri, and al-Awzaʿi. They were great scholars, and their madhhabs were followed in their time.
There is nothing in the Quran or Sunnah that limits taqlid to only four madhhabs. Some people forbid taqlid of these Imams because they think no one knows their madhhab anymore or believe there is consensus against it. But this is not correct, and the earlier views still remain. If a mujtahid finds their view matches the evidence, he can follow it. And even in taqlid, some scholars allow following a dead Imam if his madhhab is still known.
Question: Is it valid to follow these Imams: such as Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (d. 120 AH), Ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181 AH), Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161 AH), and al-Awzaʿi (d. 157 AH)? A man once said regarding these Imams mentioned, “These are not to be regarded.” So what is the ruling on the one who says such a thing?
Shayk Al Islam answered: As for the mentioned Imams, they are among the great leaders of Islam. Al-Thawri (d. 161 AH) is the Imam of the people of Iraq, and among most of them he is considered more eminent than his contemporaries such as Ibn Abi Layla (d. 148 AH), al-Hasan ibn Salih ibn Hayy (d. 168 AH), Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH) and others.
He had a madhhab that continues to this day in the land of Khurasan. Al-Awzaʿi (d. 157 AH) is the Imam of the people of Sham, and they remained upon his madhhab until the fourth century. In fact, the people of the Maghrib were upon his madhhab before the madhhab of Malik (d. 179 AH) entered upon them. Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (d. 120 AH) is the teacher of Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH).
With all of this, this view – the permissibility of following them – is the view of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), Ishaq ibn Rahuyah (d. 238 AH), and others. Their madhhab remains to this day. It is also the madhhab of Dawud ibn ʿAli (d. 270 AH) and his companions, and their madhhab still remains. So, the people have not unanimously opposed this view today. Rather, those who say it are many in both the East and the West.
And there is nothing in the Book or the Sunnah that differentiates between one mujtahid Imam and another. Malik (d. 179 AH), al-Layth ibn Saʿd (d. 175 AH), al-Awzaʿi (d. 157 AH), and At-Thawri (d. 161 AH), these were all Imams in their time, and following any one of them is like following another. No Muslim says that it is allowed to follow this one but not that one. However, whoever forbids following one of these today only does so for one of two reasons.
The first: his belief that no one remains today who knows their madhhabs, and there is a well-known disagreement about following a deceased scholar. Those who forbid it say, “They are dead.” And those who allow it say, “There must still be among the living those who know the statements of the deceased.”
The second: that he claims consensus today has formed in opposition to that view. This depends on a known issue in Usul al-Fiqh, which is whether, if the Companions or others in their time differed over an issue with two views, and the Tabiʿin or those of the second generation united upon one of the two views, would that consensus erase the previous disagreement?
There is a well-known dispute about this in the madhhab of Ahmad (d. 241 AH) and others among the scholars. So whoever says that once the second generation agrees upon something it is not allowed to follow the other opinion, and believes that such consensus occurred, then from these two beliefs he derives the prohibition.
But whoever knows that the earlier disagreement remains valid – because opinions do not die with the death of the one who held them – then for the mujtahid who finds that the earlier opinion agrees with his ijtihad, it is permissible for him to adopt it. As for blind following, that depends on the issue of following a deceased scholar, and in this too there are two well-known views in the madhhab of al-Shafiʿi (d. 204 AH), Ahmad (d. 241 AH), and others.
As for when the view held by these Imams or others is also held by one of the scholars whose madhhab continues to this day, there is no doubt that such a view is supported by their agreement with it, and it is reinforced by them. And those who oppose it among their peers are then to be compared accordingly: al-Thawri (d. 161 AH) and al-Awzaʿi (d. 157 AH) are to be compared with Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH) and Malik (d. 179 AH). The Ummah is agreed that when Malik (d. 179 AH), al-Awzaʿi (d. 157 AH), al-Thawri (d. 161 AH), and Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH) differ, it is not allowed to say the view of one is correct without proof over the other. And Allah knows best.
Majmu Fatawa By Ibn Taymiyyah (20/572-575)
But what is prohibited in Taqlid is for a person to commit to a specific Madhhab and follow it in every matter, believing that it is his path to Allah, Exalted is He. So he follows it even when it opposes the evidence.
As for the one who has the ability to perform Ijtihad, like the Student of Knowledge who has taken a significant share of Knowledge, then it is permissible for him to examine the evidences and follow what he believes is correct, or what is closer to being correct.
As for the common person and the beginner Student of Knowledge, he should strive to imitate the one he believes is closer to the truth, because of the abundance of his Knowledge, the strength of his religion, and his piety.” (Kitab Al-‘Ilm, p. 153)
People are of three types:
The first: The Mujtahid, who has the ability to derive rulings directly from the texts of the Book and the Sunnah. This one must follow what his Ijtihad leads him to, and it is prohibited for him to do Taqlid.
The second: The Student of Knowledge who has trained in seeking Knowledge until he has the ability to weigh between the opinions of Scholars, even if he has not reached the level of Ijtihad. This person is not obligated to follow any particular Scholar. Rather, he compares between the statements of Scholars and their evidences, and he follows what appears to him to be the stronger opinion.
The third: The common person who does not have sufficient Knowledge of the Sharia to weigh between the opinions of Scholars, let alone perform Ijtihad. This person’s duty is to ask the People of Knowledge and act upon what they say. This is Taqlid. Allah said: “So ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know” (Al-Nahl: 43).
The methods of seeking and attaining Knowledge are many. Among them are memorising the Noble Quran, memorising what is possible from the Prophetic Sunnah and foundational texts in Islamic sciences, and learning from trustworthy Scholars. By doing this, the Student may reach the level of being able to examine and compare between the opinions of Scholars.
Fiqh beginner books (Mutoon) are usually not concerned with mentioning evidences because they are designed for brevity.
So, whoever wishes to access the proofs for each Madhhab should return to the extended works, or to books that focus on stating juristic disagreements and weighing between opinions, such as Al-Awsat by Ibn Al-Mundhir, Al-Tamhid by Ibn Abd Al-Barr, Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah, and Nayl Al-Awtar by Al-Shawkani, and others.
If a jurist says: “It is Sunnah to do such and such,” then the origin of that is that there is a proof from the Sunnah indicating it. It might also be based on analogy, in which case it is usually said: “It is recommended.”
The obligation upon the mujtahid is to exert his utmost effort and ability to reach the Sharia rulings. As for the obligation upon the muqallid, it is to ask the people of knowledge and follow them. This is his obligation because he is not qualified or able to derive the Sharia rulings himself.
Since the obligation of each is different, and the mujtahid is prepared and capable of understanding and deriving the Sharia rulings, unlike the muqallid, and since the muqallid is not allowed to go against his own obligation due to his lack of qualification, a necessary question arises from this: is it allowed for the mujtahid to go against his obligation despite being qualified?
This is what we will explain in this section, presenting the view of al-Shatibi. But before clarifying his view on the matter, it is necessary to define the exact point of disagreement.
Clarifying the point of disagreement:
First: The scholars agreed that if a mujtahid performs ijtihad and predominantly believes that a certain ruling is correct, then it is not allowed for him to follow someone else. Rather, what he has reached is the ruling that applies to him. (see: al-Iʿtisam 2/502–503, al-Mustasfa 2/384, al-Tanqihat 333, al-Mahsul 6/83, Rawdat al-Nazir 2/376, al-Ihkam 4/204, Mukhtasar al-Muntaha with Bayān al-Mukhtasar 3/328, 330, Sharh Tanqih al-Fusul 443, Nihayat al-Wusul 8/3909, Sharh Mukhtasar al-Rawdah 3/629, Sharh al-ʿAdud 2/300, Nihayat al-Sul 4/587, al-Tamhid by al-Asnawi 524, al-Bahr al-Muhit 6/285, al-Tahrir with al-Taqrir wa al-Tahbir 3/330, Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 4/515, Fawatih al-Rahmut 2/392)
Second: the scholars agreed that it is not obligatory for a mujtahid to follow another mujtahid, even if the latter is more knowledgeable. (see: al-Tabṣirah 406, al-Mahsul 6/88, Nihayat al-Wusul 8/3916–3917, Nihayat al-Sul 4/591–592, Fawatih al-Rahmut 2/394)
Abu al-Khattab said: “No one ever said that it is obligatory for a scholar to follow someone more knowledgeable than him.” (al-Tamhid 4/415)
Al-Amidi said: “The following of one mujtahid by another, even if it is allowed according to the opponents, is not obligatory by consensus.” (al-Ihkam 4/208)
Al-Subki opposed the claim of consensus and said that this consensus is questionable, because the one who allows it when time is short must also consider it obligatory in such a situation. (see: al-Ibhaj 3/272)
Ibn Amir al-Hajj transmitted from Ibn Surayj that taqlid is not allowed unless ijtihad becomes impossible, in which case taqlid would not only be allowed but necessary. (see: al-Taqrir wa al-Tahbir 3/330).
Third: they agreed that if a mujtahid is faced with a new incident and time is too short, then it is allowed for him to perform taqlid.
Al-Ghazali said: “They agreed on the permissibility of taqlid when time is tight and deriving the ruling through ijtihad is difficult.” (see: al-Mankhul 588)
Al-Juwayni also indicated this. (see: al-Burhan 2/876) Halulu said: “There should be no disagreement in this, because he would be like someone incapable.” (Nashr al-Bunud 2/332) Ibn al-Humam said the same, and it was preferred by al-Mutiʿi. (see: al-Tahrir with al-Taqrir wa al-Tahbir 3/330, Sallam al-Wusul 4/590, 592)
However, many of the scholars of usul opposed this view and clearly stated disagreement on this issue. (see: Risalah fi Usul al-Fiqh 132, Sharh al-Lumaʿ 2/1014–1015, al-Tabṣirah 412–413, al-Talkhis 3/434–435, 447, Qawaṭiʿ al-Adillah 2/345, al-ʿUddah 4/1237, Ihkam al-Fusul 2/727, al-Tamhid 4/408, 419, Rawdat al-Nazir 2/377, al-Musawwadah 470–471, al-Ibhaj 3/272, al-Bahr al-Muhit 6/287, Hashiyat al-Taftazani ʿala al-ʿAdud 2/300)
Al-Shirazi said: “If an incident befalls the scholar and he fears missing its time, it is not allowed for him to follow someone else.” (al-Tabṣirah 412, see also Qawaṭiʿ al-Adillah 2/345)
He also said: “There is no need for taqlid even if time is tight. He must act according to his own condition, such as prayer, and then repeat it later if the correct ruling becomes clear to him, just like one who cannot find water or earth prays according to his state and repeats the prayer when he becomes able.” (Sharh al-Lumaʿ 2/1014–1015, see also Qawaṭiʿ al-Adillah 2/345, al-Tamhid 4/420, al-Musawwadah 470–471)
Fourth: They disagreed about the ruling of a mujtahid following another mujtahid if he does not perform ijtihad, whether time is short or not, and whether the one followed is more knowledgeable or not. Is this allowed for him intellectually and legally, or is it obligatory upon him? This, as I understand it, is the main point of disagreement in the issue. (see: al-Tanqihat 333, al-Mahsul 6/83, Sharh Tanqih al-Fusul 443, Mukhtasar al-Muntaha with Bayān al-Mukhtasar 3/328–330, al-Ihkam 4/204, Nihayat al-Wusul 8/3909, al-Tamhid by al-Asnawi 524, Tashnif al-Masamiʿ 4/605, al-Bahr al-Muhit 6/285, Sharh al-ʿAdud 2/300, al-Tahrir with al-Taqrir wa al-Tahbir 3/330, Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 4/516, Fawatih al-Rahmut 2/393)
The view of al-Shatibi: Al-Shatibi did not clearly state his position in this issue, but from his words it can be understood that he leans toward the view that a mujtahid is not allowed to perform taqlid.
For that reason, al-Shatibi explained the different types of questions and divided them into four types, including: “The question of a scholar to another scholar, and this is a legitimate question when it takes certain forms, such as confirming something already known, removing a doubt that has arisen, recalling something that may be forgotten, pointing out a mistake for benefit, representing the learners present, or acquiring something that might have been missed from knowledge.” (al-Muwafaqat 5/371)
His use of the word “legitimate” suggests that other types of questions are not legitimate, and from this it is understood that the default is prohibition except in such cases. Based on this, it is not allowed for a scholar to ask another scholar and follow him except in those cases that fall outside the name of taqlid.
Among the illegitimate questions is asking about an incident that has occurred to him or someone else. This supports what I mentioned as the opinion of al-Shatibi: that he allows seeking help from another mujtahid but not relying on him or performing taqlid. (see: al-Muwafaqat 5/371, 408) He also stated that the obligation upon the mujtahid is to perform ijtihad. Based on that, taqlid is not appropriate for him. (see: al-Muwafaqat 3/319, 406, 430)
This view, the prohibition and impermissibility of taqlid for the mujtahid, was supported by most of the Hanafis, most of the Malikis, most of the Shafiʿis, and most of the Hanbalis. It was also chosen by Abu al-Husayn al-Basri from the Muʿtazilah. It is a narration from Abu Hanifah, and was also reported from Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. It is the view of Malik and al-Shafiʿi, and was explicitly stated by Ahmad in one narration, and was attributed to most of the jurists. (See references: for Hanafis, al-Amshi 200–201, Mizan al-Usul 2/950, Kashf al-Asrar 3/413, al-Tahrir with al-Taqrir wa al-Tahbir 3/330, al-Wajiz 85, Taysir al-Tahrir 4/227, Fawatih al-Rahmut 2/393; for Malikis, Muqaddimah of Ibn al-Qassar 10, Ihkam al-Fusul 2/727, 729, Mukhtasar al-Muntaha with Bayān al-Mukhtasar 3/328, Taqrib al-Wusul 456, Qurrat al-ʿAyn 82, Nashr al-Bunud 2/331, Nathr al-Wurud 2/643; for Shafiʿis, al-Hawi 1/33, Sharh al-Lumaʿ 2/1012, al-Tabṣirah 403,
Qawaṭiʿ al-Adillah 2/341, 345, al-Mustasfa 2/384, al-Mahsul 6/83, al-Ihkam 4/204, Nihayat al-Wusul 8/3909, al-Siraj al-Wahhaj 2/1087–1088, Sharh al-ʿAdud 2/300, Nihayat al-Sul 4/589, al-Ibhaj 3/218, al-Bahr al-Muhit 6/285, al-Anjum al-Zahirat 244, Ghāyat al-Wusul 150; for Hanbalis, Risalah fi Usul al-Fiqh 132–133, al-ʿUddah 4/1229, al-Tamhid 4/409, al-Musawwadah 468, Rawdat al-Nazir 2/377, Usul Ibn Muflih 4/1515,
Mukhtasar Ibn al-Lahham 167, al-Insaf 11/184; and for others: al-Muʿtamad 2/945, 942, al-Tamhid 4/408, al-Ihkam 4/204, Nihayat al-Wusul by Ibn al-Saʿati 2/687, al-Taqrir wa al-Tahbir 3/330, Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir 4/516, Taysir al-Tahrir 4/228, Fawatih al-Rahmut 2/393, al-Fusul 4/283, al-ʿUddah 4/1230, al-Bahr al-Muhit 6/286, al-Musawwadah 468, Sifat al-Fatwa 52, Salsilat al-Dhahab 446, and others)
This view was also attributed to the majority, and to most of the intelligent and knowledgeable people. (see: al-Bahr al-Muhit 6/286)
Shayk Bin Baz was asked: What is the ruling on issuing a fatwa based on taqlid? And is it valid to give a fatwa without relying on evidence? (Click Here To See The Fatwa)
The Shayk responded by saying: It is not allowed to do that. Rather, one must refer to the evidences and examine the proofs. Except in a situation where there is no mujtahid present, the scholars have mentioned the permissibility of taqlid in cases of necessity.
For example, if someone is in a place or a village where they have no access to scholars, and there is no one among them except someone who knows only the madhhab of so-and-so, the madhhab of Abu Hanifah, or Malik, or Ahmad, and he gives fatwa to them based on what he understands, without having the ability to know the evidence, then in such cases, it may be permitted according to some of the scholars.
But as long as a person is able to examine, and as long as he can seek out the truth based on evidence, then that is what is obligatory upon him.
The point is that the default ruling is the impermissibility of taqlid. This is the foundation: that taqlid is not allowed for the student of knowledge. Rather, he must investigate and examine.
As for the layman, it is sufficient for him to ask the people of knowledge, and he is required to follow what they advise him with, because he is not from the people of reasoning and deduction. His duty is to ask the people of knowledge, as Allah said: “So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know” (al-Nahl: 43). So he must ask, seek out, and follow.
But as for the student of knowledge, it is obligatory upon him to seek out the evidences and not be satisfied with taqlid as long as he is able.
The permissibility of taqlid in matters of creed has been transmitted from the four Imams, and it became well-known among the Hanbalis, the Zahiris, and others. Ibn Taymiyyah attributed this view to the majority of the Ummah.
Ibn Taymiyyah said: “As for the foundational matters, many of the theologians and jurists from our companions and others held that it is obligatory upon every individual to examine and seek evidence… but the majority of the Ummah are not upon this. For what is obligatory to know is only obligatory upon those who are able to acquire knowledge. Many people are incapable of grasping such details, so how can they be required to know them?”
Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 20/202
One of their most important proofs is that the fundamental and practical matters are equal in obligation, and since taqlid is allowed in practical rulings, it must also be allowed in fundamental beliefs. There is no evidence to differentiate between the two. They responded to those who required everyone to engage in rational inquiry by saying that this would lead to declaring the common Muslims to be misguided or disbelievers, and this would be a case of burdening people with what they cannot bear.
Al-ʿAlai said: “The one who is not capable of understanding any part of the evidences at all, yet has complete certainty about what is required of him, whether due to his upbringing or a light that Allah casts in his heart, then that is sufficient for him.
As for the one who is capable of understanding the evidence, he is not excused except if his faith is based on proof. Still, the type of proof required from each person is according to his level. It is enough for him to rely on summarised evidences that result from the slightest reflection.
Whoever experiences a doubt is obligated to seek knowledge until the doubt is removed… As for the one who takes an extreme position and says that the faith of a muqallid is not valid, then his view is not to be accepted, for it would entail the invalidation of the faith of most Muslims.
Similarly, the one who takes the opposite extreme and says that it is not permissible to engage in any inquiry or look into evidence, his view also cannot be accepted, as it would lead to accusing the great early Muslims of not being people of reflection.” (see: Fath al-Bari 13/354)
What appears from the words of the Imams is that the excuse of taqlid is of the same kind as the excuse of mistaken interpretation and ignorance, since the muqallid is considered ignorant, unable to understand the evidence or the proof. So if someone who falls into disbelief due to mistaken interpretation is excused despite having knowledge and exerting effort, then the one who imitates him while being an ignorant commoner is even more worthy of excuse.
Ibn Taymiyyah said, after speaking about the disbelief and misguidance of the pantheist and unionist sects from the extremist Sufis like Ibn Sabʿin, Ibn ʿArabi, Ibn al-Farid, and others: “Anyone who knew the inner reality of this doctrine and agreed with it has shown clear disbelief and atheism.
But as for the ignorant ones who assume good about these sayings and do not understand them, and think that they are of the same type as the sayings of the righteous shaykhs who speak rightly in a way that many people do not understand, then among these you find Islam and faith and adherence to the Quran and Sunnah according to their traditional faith.
You find them affirming these individuals and having good thoughts about them and submitting to them because of their ignorance and misguidance. No one praises such individuals except a disbeliever, an atheist, or an ignorant deviant.” (see: Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 2/367)
He also said elsewhere when referring to Imam Ahmad’s position regarding the caliphs who adopted the Jahmi position and tested and punished those who opposed them: “Despite all of that, Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, asked Allah to forgive them and have mercy on them because he knew that it had not become clear to them that they were denying the Messenger or rejecting what he brought. Rather, they had misinterpreted and were mistaken, and they had followed others who said this to them.”
Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 23/349
In another place, he pointed to the excuse of those who imitate the shaykhs and scholars in matters that amount to shirk, saying: “… even though these acts are of the nature of shirk, there is nothing in them that is commanded. But some people may think that certain acts among them are commanded.
Such a person is not a mujtahid, because the mujtahid must follow a Sharia evidence, and these acts have no Sharia evidence. However, he may act upon them thinking he is doing ijtihad, when in fact he is only imitating someone among the shaykhs and scholars who did it before him. Those who did it may have done so because they saw it as effective, or because of a fabricated hadith they heard. These people, if the evidence forbidding it has not been established upon them, are not to be punished.”
Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 20/32
Ibn al-Qayyim said when explaining the categories of people of innovation: “As for those among the innovators who still belong to Islam but oppose it in some fundamental matters, such as the Rafidah, Qadariyyah, Jahmiyyah, extremist Murjiʿah and the like, they are of several types:
The first: the ignorant muqallid who has no insight. This person is not declared a disbeliever or a sinner, and his testimony is not rejected if he is unable to learn the truth. His ruling is the same as the weak ones among the men, women, and children who ‘cannot devise a plan or find a way’ (al-Nisa: 98). ‘It may be that Allah will pardon them. Allah is Ever Pardoning, Forgiving.’ (al-Nisa: 99)
The second: the one who is able to ask and seek guidance and learn the truth, but he neglects this because he is busy with worldly matters, position, desires, livelihood, and the like. This person is negligent, deserving of punishment, sinful for neglecting what Allah required of him according to his ability.
His ruling is like others who neglect some obligations. If his innovation and desires outweigh his following of the Sunnah and guidance, his testimony is rejected. But if his Sunnah and guidance outweigh, his testimony is accepted.
The third: the one who asks and seeks and is shown the truth but abandons it out of imitation, bias, or hatred and enmity towards those who uphold it. The lowest of his states is that he is a sinner, and whether or not he is a disbeliever is a matter of judgment and detail.”
Tariq al-Hijratayn, p. 146
He also said: “This issue needs clarification to remove confusion. There is a difference between a muqallid who had the ability to know the truth but turned away from it, and a muqallid who never had the ability in the first place. Both types exist. As for the one who had the ability but turned away, he is negligent and has abandoned what was obligatory upon him. He has no excuse with Allah.” (see: al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah 1/464)
As for the claim that certainty is required in creed but assumption is enough in practical rulings, this is one of the well-known innovations of the theologians. Because of this claim, they said that solitary hadiths cannot be used in matters of creed, that the faith of the muqallid is not valid, and other similar innovations. (see: al-Ihkam by al-Amidi 4/225, Qawaṭiʿ al-Adillah 2/346, al-Bahr al-Muhit 8/326, Irshad al-Fuhul 2/241)
