5.3 Uhalisia wa Taqlīd - Utu wa Kiislamu | Quran Course

5.3 Uhalisia wa Taqlīd - Utu wa Kiislamu | Quran Course

Kwanza: Inapotokea kwamba dalili aliyoitegemea katika Ijtihad yake ni dhaifu (da'if), na dalili ya mujtahid mwingine ina nguvu zaidi kuliko dalili aliyoitumia, basi katika hali hiyo analazimika kuacha hukumu ambayo Ijtihad yake ilimfikisha kwayo, na kukubali hukumu ambayo ina nguvu zaidi kidalili. Ni haramu kwake kuendelea na hukumu ya kwanza aliyoifikia kwa Ijtihad yake. Asizuiwe kuchukua hukumu mpya kwa sababu tu mujtahid mpya ndiye pekee aliyeshikilia maoni hayo, au kwa sababu hukumu hii haijawahi kushikiliwa na mtu yeyote kabla yake. Hilo linapingana na taqwa (kumcha Mwenyezi Mungu), kwa sababu jambo la msingi ni nguvu ya dalili na si idadi ya watu waliolishikilia au kale lilipoanza. Ni Ijtihad ngapi za Sahaba zilikuwa na makosa ambayo baadaye yalidhihirika kwa Tabi'een au Tabi'-Tabi'een. Pale udhaifu wa dalili za mujtahid na nguvu ya dalili ya mtu mwingine vinapodhihirika kupitia tarjih (kupima na kuchagua lenye nguvu), bila kuzingatia dalili zote na istidlal (kuzitolea hoja) kutoka kwake, katika hali hiyo atachukuliwa kuwa muqallid, kwa sababu amekubali maoni ya mtu mwingine kwa tarjih. Mfano wake ni wa muqallid anayekabiliwa na hukumu mbili, kisha akapendelea mojawapo kwa kuzingatia sifa ya kisheria (murajjih Shar'i). Lakini ikiwa udhaifu wa dalili yake na nguvu ya dalili ya mtu mwingine vinadhihirika kupitia muhakama (kuchunguza) na kufuatilia dalili na istinbat (kutoa hukumu kutoka kwa dalili), na kupitia hilo akafikia maoni ambayo ni maoni ya mtu mwingine, basi katika hali hiyo si muqallid bali ni mujtahid ambaye kwake imedhihirika kuwa Ijtihad yake ya awali ilikuwa si sahihi. Hivyo anarejea kutoka huko kwenda maoni mengine ambayo ameyatoa mwenyewe, kama alivyofanya al-Shafi'i katika masuala kadhaa.

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.

Pili: Ikiwa inamdhihirikia mujtahid kwamba mujtahid mwingine ana uwezo mkubwa zaidi wa kuunganisha, au ana ufahamu bora wa uhalisia, au ufahamu imara zaidi wa dalili, au anazijua zaidi dalili za kisheria za maandiko (adilla sam'iyya) n.k., na ikamtokea kwamba mujtahid huyo mwingine yuko karibu zaidi na ukweli katika kuelewa jambo fulani au mambo kadhaa kama yalivyo, basi inaruhusiwa kwake, katika hali hii, kuacha hukumu aliyoifikia kwa ijtihadi yake na kufuata mujtahid mwingine ambaye ana imani zaidi na ijtihadi yake kuliko na yake mwenyewe. Imepokewa kwa usahihi kutoka kwa al-Sha'bi kwamba Abu Musa alikuwa akiacha maoni yake kwa maoni ya 'Ali. Na kwamba Zayd alikuwa akiacha maoni yake kwa maoni ya Ubay ibn Ka'b, na kwamba Abdullah ibn Mas'ud alikuwa akiacha maoni yake kwa maoni ya 'Umar. Pia zimepokewa visa kuhusu Abu Bakr na 'Umar kwamba walikuwa wakiacha maoni yao kwa maoni ya 'Ali. Hii inaonyesha kwamba mujtahid anaweza kurudi nyuma kutoka maoni yake na kufuata maoni ya mwingine kwa sababu ya imani yake katika ijtihadi ya mujtahid huyo mwingine. Hata hivyo, hili ni ruhusa kwa mujtahid na si wajibu.

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.

na kwamba amri yake inapaswa kutekelezwa kwa Waislamu wote.

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

Nne: Ikiwa kuna maoni ambayo kwayo nia ni kuwaunganisha Waislamu, kwa manufaa ya Waislamu, katika hali kama hiyo mujtahid anaruhusiwa kuacha alichokifikia kwa Ijtihād yake, kama kilivyotokea kwa Uthman alipopewa bay'a. Imepokewa kwamba Abdur-Rahman ibn 'Awf, baada ya kushauriana na watu mmoja mmoja na katika vikundi, kwa pamoja na kwa kutengana, kwa siri na hadharani, alikusanya watu msikitini, akapanda mimbarini na kufanya dua ndefu. Kisha akamwita 'Ali, akamshika mkono na kusema: Je, unaniahidi kwamba utatawala kwa mujibu wa Kitabu cha Allah {na Sunnah ya Mtume Wake} na maoni yaliyoshikwa baada yake na Abu Bakr na 'Umar? 'Ali akasema: Nakuahidi kwa msingi wa Kitabu cha Allah na Sunnah ya Mtume Wake ﷺ, lakini nitatumia Ijtihād yangu mwenyewe. Basi akaachia mkono wake, akamwita 'Uthman na kumwambia: Je, unaniahidi kwamba utatawala kwa mujibu wa Kitabu cha Allah na Sunnah ya Mtume Wake ﷺ na maoni yaliyoshikwa baada yake na Abu Bakr na 'Umar? 'Uthman akasema: Naapa kwa Allah, ndiyo! Basi Abdur-Rahman akainua kichwa chake kuelekea dari ya msikiti, mkono wake ukiwa mkononi mwa 'Uthman, akasema mara tatu: Ee Allah, sikia na shuhudia! Kisha akampa bay'a, na watu wakamiminika msikitini kumpa 'Uthman bay'a, hadi 'Ali akalazimika kujisukuma katikati ya watu mpaka akampa 'Uthman ahadi yake. Hivyo, Abdur-Rahman alimtaka mujtahid, 'Ali na 'Uthman, aache Ijtihād yake na kufuata Ijtihād ya Abu Bakr na 'Umar katika masuala yote, iwe amefanya Ijtihād yake mwenyewe kuhusu hayo na ana maoni yanayopingana na maoni ya wote wawili au mmoja wao, au bado hajafanya Ijtihād. Masahaba walikubaliana na hili, nao wakampa 'Uthman bay'a kwa msingi huo. Hata 'Ali, ambaye alikataa kuacha Ijtihād yake, alimpa 'Uthman bay'a kwa msingi huo. Lakini hili linaruhusiwa kwa mujtahid na si lazima, kama inavyothibitishwa na kukataa kwa 'Ali kuacha Ijtihad yake kwa ajili ya Ijtihad ya Abu Bakr na 'Umar. Hakuna aliyemkemea kwa hilo, jambo linaloonyesha kuwa ni ruhusa na si wajibu.

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.

Yote haya yanahusu mujtahid ambaye amefanya Ijtihadi kikweli, na Ijtihadi yake imempelekea kwenye hukumu juu ya suala fulani. Kuhusu mujtahid ambaye hajafanya Ijtihadi juu ya suala fulani, inaruhusiwa kwake kufuata mujtahidina wengine na asifanye Ijtihadi juu ya suala hilo, kwa kuwa Ijtihadi ni wajibu wa kutosha (fardh 'ala al-kifaya) na si wajibu wa mtu binafsi (fardh 'ayn). Ikiwa anajua hukumu ya Allah (SWT) juu ya suala fulani, basi si wajibu kwa mujtahid kufanya Ijtihadi kuhusu suala hilo. Imepokewa kwa usahihi kutoka kwa 'Umar kwamba alimwambia Abu Bakr:

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:

Imepokewa pia kwa usahihi kuhusu 'Umar kwamba alipojikuta hana kabisa jibu la kile kilichohitajika pale wahasimu wawili walipomjia, kwa kukosa jibu katika Qur'ani na Sunnah, alikuwa akiangalia kama Abu Bakr alikuwa na hukumu katika jambo hilo. Ikiwa alipata kwamba Abu Bakr alikuwa ametoa hukumu fulani kuhusu suala hilo, alitoa hukumu ile ile. Imepokewa kwa uhakika kuhusu Ibn Mas'ud kwamba alikuwa akikubali maoni ya 'Umar. Hilo lilikuwa likitokea mbele ya macho na masikio ya Maswahaba katika matukio mengi, na hakuna aliyepinga. Hivyo likawa ijma' ya kimya (ijma' sukuti).

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).

Hii ndiyo hali halisi ya utekelezaji wa Taqlīd kwa mujtahid. Kuhusu Taqlīd ya asiye mujtahid, awe ni mtu mwenye elimu au mtu wa kawaida (‘aammi), anapokutana na suala fulani, hairuhusiwi kwake kufanya chochote isipokuwa kuuliza kuhusu hilo, kwa sababu Allah (SWT) hakuwafanya viumbe watumwa Wake (wamwabudu Yeye) kwa ujinga, bali aliwafanya watumwa Wake (wamwabudu Yeye) kwa elimu. Yeye (SWT) amesema:

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:

Maagizo haya yaliendelea kuwa ya jumla wakati wa Masahaba, ambapo mujtahidun waliulizwa kutoa fatwa na walifuatwa katika hukumu za Sharī'ah. Walikuwa wakijibu maswali bila kutaja dalili, wala hapakuwa na yeyote aliyewakataza kufanya hivyo. Haya yote yalifanyika bila pingamizi kutoka kwa mtu yeyote. Hivyo ikawa ijma'. Hali hii pia ilikuwa ikifanywa kwa kawaida na Waislamu wakati wa Tabi'een na Tabi' Tabi'een, na matukio elfu nyingi yameripotiwa kuthibitisha hilo.

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.

Kama ilivyoruhusiwa kwa mwanachuoni au mtu wa kawaida kufuata wengine katika hukumu ya Sharīʿah, yaani inaruhusiwa kuwauliza wengine, vivyo hivyo inaruhusiwa kwake kufundisha hukumu hii ya Sharīʿah kwa wengine kama anavyoielewa, pale anapokuwa na uhakika kwamba ameielewa kwa usahihi, na amekubali hukumu hii ya Sharīʿah ili aitekeleze mwenyewe, yaani ana uhakika kwamba ni hukumu ya Sharīʿah. Kwa upande mwingine, ikiwa hana imani na hukumu hii kwa sababu ya kutokuwa na uhakika na usahihi wa dalili, au kutokuwa na imani na dini (deen) ya aliyemfundisha, basi haijuzu kwake kuifundisha wengine ili wailiwe. Akilazimika kuizungumzia, basi aseme kile anachokijua kuhusu hukumu hiyo. Inaruhusiwa kwa mtu anayejifunza hukumu kuifundisha kwa wengine, kwa sababu kila mwenye elimu hata ya jambo moja huchukuliwa kuwa mjuzi wa jambo hilo, pale anapokuwa na imani na elimu yake ya hukumu hiyo na ukweli wa anachokisema kuhusu jambo hilo. Kuficha elimu ni jambo lililokatazwa. Alisema:

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:

Hii ni ya jumla na inatumika kwa elimu ya suala moja au masuala mengi.

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

Hata hivyo, mwanafunzi mwenye elimu (muta’allim) hahesabiwi kuwa ni muqallid wa yule aliyemfundisha hukumu hiyo. Badala yake, yeye ni muqallid wa mujtahid ambaye ameitoa hukumu ya Sharī’ah. Na kujifunza hukumu hii kunahesabiwa kuwa ni kujifunza tu. Kwa kuwa taqlīd inaweza kufanywa kwa mujtahid pekee, si kwa mtu ambaye ana ujuzi wa hukumu tu. Kwa kadiri mtu asiye mujtahid anavyofikia katika elimu, haijuzu kumfanyia taqlīd kwa sifa yake ya kuwa mwenye elimu, kwa sababu inaruhusiwa tu kujifunza kutoka kwake, si kumfanyia taqlīd.

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.

Muqallid hapewi nafasi ya kuchagua pale panapotokea tofauti ya maoni, kwa mfano pale wanapotofautiana mujtahidi wawili katika maoni mawili. Hivyo maoni tofauti humfikia muqallid, yaani hukmu ya Mwenyezi Mungu humfikia kama maoni mawili. Baadhi ya watu wanafikiri kwamba maoni mawili kwa muqallid ni sawa na maoni moja. Wanafikiri ana haki ya kuchagua kati yake, hivyo hufuata matamanio yake na kile kinachomfaa, wala si maoni yanayopingana nayo. Hata hivyo, hali si hiyo, kwa kuwa Muislamu ameamriwa kufuata hukm Shar'i. Hukm Shar'i ni kauli ya Mwekaji Sharia, na kauli ni moja tu, haiwezi kuwa zaidi ya moja. Pale kunapokuwa na uelewa zaidi ya mmoja wa kauli hiyo, kila uelewa huwa ni hukmu ya Sharia kwa yule anayeuelewa na kwa yule anayemfuata. Kinachokuwa kingine chochote hakihesabiwi kuwa hukm Shar'i kwake. Basi inawezekanaje kwake kufuata maoni mawili tofauti? Muqallid anapokuta maoni mawili kutoka kwa mujtahidi wanaopingana, kila mujtahidi anafuata dalili inayodai kinyume cha ile dalili ya mujtahidi mwingine. Wana dalili mbili zinazopingana. Kufuata mojawapo kwa kufuata matamanio ni kitu kisicho kingine zaidi ya kufuata matamanio na matakwa ya nafsi, na hilo ni haramu. Alisema:

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:

Wakati wanachuoni wawili wa ijtihadi wanapotofautiana, mwenye kufuata (muqallid) lazima arejeshe jambo hilo kwa Allah na Mtume kwa kulirejesha kwa rai yenye nguvu zaidi ambayo, kwa mwenye kufuata, Allah na Mtume wameridhia, kwa namna kama mujtahidi anavyorejea katika Kitabu cha Allah na Sunnah ya Mtume wake . Na kurejea kwa kile ambacho Allah na Mtume wake wameridhia ni mbali na kufuata matamanio ya nafsi. Mwenye kufuata lazima achague mojawapo ya maoni hayo mawili, na uchaguzi huu lazima uwe kwa msingi wa rai yenye nguvu zaidi ambayo Allah na Mtume wake wameridhia. Haiwezekani kwa mwenye kufuata kutenda kwa maoni yote mawili kwa sababu yanapingana. Na uchaguzi wake wa mojawapo ya madhehebu mawili au mojawapo ya hukumu mbili tofauti bila rai yenye nguvu ni uchaguzi unaotokana na matamanio ya nafsi. Ni kinyume cha kurejea kwa Allah na Mtume . Rai zenye nguvu (murajjahat) ambazo kwazo mwenye kufuata anamtangulizia mujtahidi mmoja juu ya mwingine, au hukumu moja juu ya hukumu nyingine nyingi, za kwanza na za msingi kati yake ni: suala la elimu bora na ufahamu bora. Imepokelewa katika hadithi ya Ibn Mas'ud kwamba yeye alisema:

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:

Kwa hiyo, muqallid anapima kwa kuzingatia kile anachojua kuhusu elimu na uaminifu wa mujtahid, kwa sababu uaminifu ni sharti katika kukubali ushahidi wa shahidi. Kufikisha hukmu ya Shari'a kwa njia ya kufundisha ni kushuhudia kwamba hii ni hukmu ya Shari'a; kwa hiyo, ili kukubali hukmu hiyo, uadilifu wa mwalimu anayeifundisha ni muhimu. Basi uadilifu wa anayeitoa hukmu kwa kutumia ijtihadi ni wa lazima zaidi. Hivyo basi, a‘adala (uadilifu) ni sharti ambalo mtu ambaye kutoka kwake tunachukua hukmu ya Shari'a lazima awe nalo, awe ni mujtahid au mwalimu. Hili ni la hakika. Kuhusu elimu, ndiyo kigezo cha kupima ubora. Yeyote anayeamini kwamba Shafi'i alikuwa na elimu zaidi na kwamba mazhabu yake ina uwezekano mkubwa wa kuwa sahihi, basi hana haki ya kufuata mazhabu kwa kufuata matamanio yake yanayopingana nayo. Na yeyote anayeamini kwamba Ja'far al-Sadiq alikuwa na elimu zaidi na kwamba mazhabu yake ina uwezekano mkubwa wa kuwa sahihi, basi hana haki ya kwenda kinyume nayo kwa msingi wa matamanio yake. Badala yake, ni wajibu kwake kufuata kile kinachopingana na mazhabu yake pale maoni yenye nguvu zaidi yanapojitokeza baada ya kupima ushahidi. Tarjeeh (kupima na kuchagua lililo na nguvu zaidi) ni jambo la lazima, na tarjeeh hii haipaswi kuwa kwa kufuata matamanio ya nafsi, nayo pia ni jambo la lazima. Muqallid hana haki ya kuchagua kutoka katika masuala ya mazhabu mbalimbali yale tu yanayomfaa zaidi. Badala yake, aina hii ya tarjeeh inafanana na tarjeeh ya mujtahid anapopima ushahidi mbili zinazopingana. Ili kufanya tarjeeh, yeye hutegemea usahihi wa taarifa inayokuja pamoja na qara'in (dalili za nje zinazoonyesha uzito wa jambo). Hili linahusu kupima kwa ajili ya kufuata mazhabu kwa ujumla, si kwa kila hukmu moja moja.

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.

Kipaumbele katika Taqlīd ni cha aina mbili: Kwanza: kipaumbele cha jumla, ambacho kinahusu mtu anayetaka kumfuata, kama vile Ja'far al-Sadiq na Malik ibn Anas, kwa mfano. Na pili: sifa maalumu, ambayo inahusu hukmu fulani ya Shari'a anayotaka kuifuata. Suala la ujuzi bora linaingia katika aina ya pili. Ikiwa tukio lilitokea Madina wakati wa Malik, basi yeye anachukuliwa kuwa mwenye ujuzi zaidi kuhusu tukio hilo kuliko Abu Yusuf. Na tukio lililotokea Kufa wakati wa Ja'far, anachukuliwa kuwa mwenye ujuzi zaidi juu yake kuliko Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Kwa hiyo, muqallid hurejea kwenye taarifa kuhusu mujtahid zinazomfikia.

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.

Kuwa na elimu bora zaidi si sifa pekee, wala si sifa ya Taqlīd yenyewe. Badala yake, ni sifa ya jumla kwa yule anayetaka kufanya Taqlīd, na kwa ujumla kwa hukumu inayokusudiwa kufuatwa. Kuhusu sifa ya kweli kuhusiana na hukumu, ni nguvu ya ushahidi ambao tegemeo limewekwa juu yake. Lakini kwa kuwa muqallid hawezi kuelewa ushahidi, kwa hiyo kigezo cha elimu bora zaidi kinachukuliwa badala yake. Zipo sifa nyingi zinazotambulika, ambazo hutofautiana kulingana na hali za wafuasi wa Taqlīd (muqallids).

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