The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

The definition of Taqlīd, linguistically and legally, indicates that anyone who follows others in a matter will be a muqallid, so the subject matter is ‘following others’. Therefore, there are two types of people with respect to the knowledge of the Sharī’ah rules: The first is the mujtahid and the second is the muqallid and there is no third. Since, the reality of the man is that he either adopts what he has arrived at himself by his Ijtihād or what someone else has arrived at by Ijtihād. The issue is limited to these two cases. Therefore, anyone who is not a mujtahid is a muqallid of whatever category. The issue in Taqlīd is the adoption of the rule from others irrespective of whether the one who adopted is a mujtahid or not a mujtahid. It is allowed for the mujtahid to imitate other Mujtahiddin in a single matter even if he himself was qualified to do Ijtihād. Then, he will be considered a muqallid in this issue. Thus, in a single hukm the imitator (muqallid) may or may not be a mujtahid. The same person may be a mujtahid and he may be a muqallid at the same time.The mujtahid when he comes to obtain a complete competence for Ijtihād in one of the issues, if he performs Ijtihād on it and his Ijtihād leads him to the hukm, he is not allowed to imitate other mujtahiddin in a matter contrary to what his Ijtihād has led him to. It is not allowed for him to leave his opinion in this matter except in four cases:

First: When it appears that the evidence on which he relied in his Ijtihād is weak (da’if) and the evidence of another mujtahid is stronger than the evidence he used. In such a case he is obliged to leave the rule to which his Ijtihād had led to and adopt the rule which is evidentially stronger. It is forbidden for him to continue on the first rule which he had reached by his Ijtihād. He should not be prevented from adopting the new rule simply because the new mujtahid was the only one to hold such an opinion or because this rule has not been espoused by anyone before. That goes against taqwa (the fear of Allah ), because what matters is the strength of the evidence and not the number of people that have held it or how ancient they are. How many an Ijtihād of the Sahabah  there were whose error later became apparent to the Tabi’een or Tabi’-Tabi’een. When the weakness of the mujtahid’s evidence, and the strength of someone else’s evidence becomes apparent through outweighing (tarjeeh), without considering all of the evidences and the inference from them, then in such a situation, he will be considered a muqallid, because he has adopted the opinion of someone else by outweighing (tarjeeh). His example is that of the muqallid who is confronted with two rules, so he gave preponderance to one of them according to a Sharī’ah qualification (murajjih Shar’i). If the weakness of his evidence and the strength of someone else’s evidence becomes apparent through judgement (muhakama) and pursuance of evidences and inference (istinbat) and through this he arrives at an opinion which is the opinion of another person. In that case he is not a muqallid but a mujtahid to whom the incorrectness of the initial Ijtihād became apparent. So he retracts from it to another opinion which he has deduced himself as happened with al-Shafi’i in a number of cases.

Second: When it appears to a mujtahid that another mujtahid has a greater capacity to link or has better awareness of the reality, or stronger comprehension of the evidences or is more acquainted with the textual evidences (adilla sam’iyya) etc. And it becomes preponderate to him that the other mujtahid is closer to the truth in understanding a specific issue or issues as they are. It is allowed for him in this case to leave the rule he has reached through his Ijtihād and follow the other mujtahid in whose Ijtihād he has more confidence than his own. It has been correctly reported on the authority of al-Sha’bi that Abu Musa used to leave his opinion for the opinion of ‘Ali. And that Zayd used to leave his opinion for Ubay ibn Ka’b’s opinion, and that Abdullah Ibn Masud used to leave his opinion for the opinion of ‘Umar. Incidents have been reported about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar that they used to leave their opinion for the opinion of ‘Ali. This indicates the retraction of a mujtahid from his opinion for the opinion of someone else based on his trust in the Ijtihād of the other mujtahid. However, this is a permission for the mujtahid and not obligatory.

Third: If the Khalifah adopts a rule which conflicts with the rule arrived through his Ijtihād. In such an event he is obliged to leave the rule arrived at by his Ijtihād and take the rule which the imam (leader) has adopted and this is because the Ijma’ of the Sahabah has been concluded that

and that his decree is to be implemented on all Muslims.

Fourth: If there is an opinion by which it is intended to unify the Muslims, for the good of the Muslims, in such a situation it is allowed for the mujtahid to leave what he reached by his Ijtihād, as happened with Uthman when he was given the bay’a. It has been reported that Abdur-Rahman ibn ‘Awf, after he had consulted the people individually and in groups, together and separately, secretly and openly, he gathered the people in the Mosque, ascended the pulpit and made a long supplication. He then called ‘Ali and took hold of his hand and said: Do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of His Messenger  and the opinions held after him  by Abu Bakr And ‘Umar? Ali said: I pledge to you on the basis of the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of His Messenger , but I will exercise my own Ijtihād. So he let go of his hand and called for ‘Uthman and said to him: Do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of His Messenger  and the opinions held after him  by Abu Bakr And ‘Umar? ‘Uthman said: By Allah, Yes! So Abdur-Rahman raised his head towards the roof of the Mosque, his hand in Uthman’s hand, and said three times: O Allah , hear and bear witness! Then he gave him the pledge and the people thronged to the mosque to give bay’a to him making Ali having to push his way through the people until he gave his pledge to ‘Uthman. Thus, Abdur-Rahman demanded from a mujtahid, ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, to leave his Ijtihād and follow the Ijtihād of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in all issues, whether he has exercised his own Ijtihād regarding them and has an opinion which contradicts the opinion of both or one of them, or he has not exercised Ijtihād yet. The Sahabah  concurred with this and they gave bay’a to ‘Uthman on that basis. Even ‘Ali who refused to leave his Ijtihād, gave bay’a to ‘Uthman on that basis. However, this is permitted for the mujtahid and not obligatory, as evidenced by ‘Ali’s refusal to leave his Ijtihād for the Ijtihād of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. No one rebuked him for that, which indicates that it is permitted and not obligatory.

All of this is with respect to the mujtahid who has actually exercised Ijtihād and his Ijtihād has led him to a rule on an issue. As for the mujtahid who has not exercised Ijtihād on an issue, it is allowed for him to follow other mujtahidin and not make Ijtihād on the issue, since Ijtihād is an obligation of sufficiency (fard ‘ala al-kifaya) and not an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn). If he knows the rule of Allah  on an issue, then it is not an obligation on the mujtahid to make Ijtihād with regards to it. It has been correctly reported about ‘Umar that he said to Abu Bakr:

It has also been correctly reported about ‘Umar that when he found himself completely at a loss to find in the Qur’ān and Sunnah what was needed when two disputing parties come to him, that he would see if Abu Bakr had a decision in the matter. If he found that Abu Bakr had passed a certain judgement on the issue he would pass the same judgement. It has been authentically reported about Ibn Mas’ud  that he used to adopt the opinion of ‘Umar . That used to take place before the eyes and ears of the Sahabah  in numerous incidents and no one objected. Thus, it became a tacit ijma’ (ijma’ sukuti).

This is the reality of the mujtahid’s practise of Taqlīd. As for the Taqlīd of the non-mujtahid whether he is a learned person or a layman (‘aammi), when he faces an issue, he is not permitted to do anything other than ask about it because Allah  did not enslave (make them to worship him) the creation through ignorance, rather, He  enslaved them (made them worship him) through knowledge. He  said:

i.e, Allah  teaches you whatever the case may be, so fear Him . So the knowledge comes before the taqwa (fear of Allah), since the order to fear Allah  follows from the acquisition of knowledge in a natural order. This means that knowledge is acquired before involvement in the action. Just as when He  said:

it comes to the mind the question, what is taqwa? Thus, He  said: And Allah  teaches you so fear Him . Therefore, knowledge must come before action. Thus, it is fard on the Muslim to learn the rules of Allah  which are necessary for action before he acts, since it is not possible for him to act upon it without knowledge. And this knowledge of the rules requires people to ask about them in order to adopt the rules and act upon them. And through this knowledge, he will follow that rule. He  said:

It is a general instruction to all the addressees (mukhatabin). And He  said in the hadīth about the person whose skull was fractured:

This instruction continued to be general during the time of the Sahabah, where the mujtahidun used to be asked for legal opinions and be followed in the Sharī’ah rules. They would undertake the answering of questions without mentioning the evidence, and no one forbade them from doing that. All of this took place without any objection from anyone. Thus it was an ijma’. It was commonly practised by the Muslims also in the time of the Tabi’een and tabi-Tabi’een, and thousands of incidents have been reported to that effect.

Just as it is allowed for the learned person or layman to follow others in the Sharī’ah rule i.e, it is permitted to ask others, In a similar way, it is permitted for him to teach this Sharī’ah rule to others as he understands it, when he is sure that he has understood it correctly, and he has adopted this Sharī’ah rule to act upon it himself i.e, he is sure that it is a Sharī’ah rule. As for if he does not trust this rule due to his lack of confidence in the authenticity of the evidence or lack of trust in the character (deen) of the one who has taught it to him then it is not allowed for him to teach it to others in order to act upon it. If he has to say it, he should say what he knows about it (rule). It is permitted for the one who learns a rule to teach it to others because anyone who has knowledge even of a single issue he is considered to be knowledgeable about that issue, when he has trust in his knowledge of the rule and in the truthfulness of what he has said about the issue. The concealment of knowledge is forbidden. He  said:

This is general and applicable to knowledge of a single or many issues.

However, the learned person (muta’allim) is not considered to be a follower (muqallid) of the one who has taught him the rule. Rather he is the muqallid of the mujtahid who has deduced the Sharī’ah rule. And the learning of this rule is considered only as learning. Since Taqlīd can only be made to a mujtahid and not to someone who only has the knowledge of a rule. However much a non-mujtahid attains in terms of knowledge, it is not permitted to make Taqlīd to him in his capacity as learned person, because it is only permitted to learn from him, not make Taqlīd to him.

The muqallid is not given a choice when a difference of opinion arises, when for instance the mujtahiddin differ on two opinions. So the different opinions reached the muqallid, i.e, the divine rule reached the muqallid as two opinions. Some people think that the two opinions with respect to a muqallid is tantamount to one opinion. They think he has the right to choose between them, so he follows his whims and desires and whatever serves his purpose and not the opinion that goes against it. However, the situation is not like that, since the Muslim is ordered to adopt the hukm Shari’. The hukm Shar’i is the speech of the Legislator and there is only one speech, there cannot be more than one. When there is more than one understanding of the speech then each understanding constitutes a Sharī’ah rule with respect to the one who understands it and the one who makes Taqlīd to him. Anything other than that is not considered a hukm Shar’i with respect to him. So how is it possible then for him to adopt two different opinions? When a muqallid finds two opinions from the mujtahiddin which conflict with each other, then each mujtahid is a follower of an evidence which demands the opposite of what the evidence of the other mujtahid demands. They possess two conflicting evidences. Following one of them according to one’s whims is nothing short of following one’s whims and desires and this is forbidden. He  said:

Thus, the muqallid has no option but to make Taqlīd. Two mujtahids with respect to the layman (‘ammi) are like two evidences with respect to the mujtahid. Just as it is obliged on the Mujtahid to outweigh two conflicting evidences, likewise it is incumbent on the muqallid to outweigh two contradictory rules. If whims and motives were allowed to arbitrate in something like this then it would have been allowed for the judge and this is invalid according to the ijma’ of the Sahabah. Also, in the issues of the Qur’ān there is a general rule which altogether disallows the following of the whims and desires, as in His  saying:

When two mujtahids differ, the muqallid must refer it (the issue) to Allah  and the Messenger  which is done by referring it to a preponderant which, for the muqallid, Allah  and the Messenger  are pleased with, in a similar way as the mujtahid returns to the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of His Messenger . And returning to what Allah  and His Messenger  are pleased with is far from following one’s whims and desires. The muqallid must choose one of the two opinions and this choice must be based on the preponderant which Allah  and His Messenger  are pleased with. It is not possible for the muqallid to act upon both opinions since they conflict. And his choice of one of the two mazhabs or one of the two different rules without a preponderant is a choice based on whims and desires. It is contrary to returning to Allah  and the Messenger . The preponderants (murajjahat) by which the muqallid prefers a mujtahid over another, or one rule over many other rules, the first and foremost of them are: the question of best knowledge and understanding. It is narrated in the hadīth of Ibn Mas’ud that he  said:

Therefore, the muqallid outweighs what he knows of the mujtahid’s knowledge and trustworthiness because trustworthiness is a condition in accepting the testimony of a witness. Conveying a hukm Shar’i through teaching is a testification that this is a hukm Shar’i therefore, for accepting the rule, the integrity of the teacher who teaches it is essential. So the integrity of the one who deduces it is by greater reason. So the a‘adala (integrity) is a condition which the person from whom we take the hukm Shar’i must qualify, whether he is a mujtahid or a teacher. It is definite. As for knowledge it is the preponderant. Whoever believes that Shafi’i was more knowledgeable and his mazhab is more likely to be correct, then he does not have the right to adopt a mazhab according to his whims and desires which contradicts it. And whoever believes that Ja’far al-sadiq is more knowledgeable and his mazhab is more likely to be correct, then he does not have the right to go against it based on his whims. Rather it is obligatory upon him to adopt what conflicts with his mazhab when the preponderant opinion becomes apparent after outweighing the evidence. Tarjeeh (outweighing) is necessary and this outweighing should not be based on whims and desires is also necessary. The muqallid does not have the right to pick and choose from the mazhabs issues which are more agreeable to him. Rather this type of outweighing is like the outweighing of two conflicting evidences for the mujtahid. To perform tarjeeh (outweighing) he relies on the veracity of the information which comes with the qara’in (indications). This is the case when outweighing for adopting in total (i.e a mazhab), not for every single rule.

The preponderant in Taqlīd is two: First: a general preponderant, which relates to the the person he wishes to follow such as Ja’far al-Sadiq and Malik ibn Anas for example. And second, the specific qualification which is with regards to a specific hukm Shar’i which he wishes to follow. The question of best knowledge comes in the second category. If an incident had taken place in Medina in the time of Malik, then he is regarded as more knowledgeable about it than Abu Yusuf. And the incident which took place in Kufa in the time of Ja’far, he is considered more knowledgeable about it than Ahmad ibn Hanbal. So the muqallid refers to the information about the mujtahid which reaches him.

Having the best knowledge is not the only qualification and nor is it the qualification for Taqlīd in itself. Rather it is the general qualification for the one who wishes to make Taqlīd and in general terms for the rule which is intended to be followed. As for the true qualification with regards to the rule, it is the strength of the evidence on which reliance is put. However, because the muqallid cannot understand the evidence, therefore the criterion of best knowledge is considered instead. There are many recognised qualifcations which vary according to the states of the muqallids