Taqlid — bu bog‘lovchi dalilsiz boshqa kishining fikrini qabul qilishdir. Shunday ekan, boshqa kishining fikrini bog‘lovchi dalilsiz qabul qilish ham, boshqa kishining fikriga ko‘ra amal qilish ham taqlid hisoblanadi. Bu xuddi oddiy odamning mujtahidning fikrini qabul qilishi yoki mujtahidning o‘ziga o‘xshagan boshqa kishidan biror fikrni qabul qilishiga o‘xshaydi. Rasulullah ﷺ ga murojaat qilish ularga taqlid emas, shuningdek, sahobalar ijmo’iga murojaat qilish ham ularga taqlid emas, chunki bu dalilning o‘ziga murojaat qilishdir, boshqa kishining fikrini qabul qilish emas. Xuddi shunday, oddiy odamning muftiyga murojaat qilishi ham unga taqlid hisoblanmaydi, balki bu fatvo so‘rash va o‘rganishdir, qabul qilish emas. Demak, u yo fatvo olish uchun, yoki o‘rganish uchun unga murojaat qiladi; ya’ni oddiy odamning ilm egasiga murojaati hukm shar’iyni so‘rash yoki uni o‘rganish bo‘lgani uchun unga taqlid hisoblanmaydi. Dalilini bilgan holda fikrni qabul qilishga kelsak, u tekshirib ko‘riladi. Agar dalil haqidagi bilim oddiy bilim bo‘lsa, masalan, Rasulullah ﷺ aytganlari sababli qabrlarni ziyorat qilish joiz ekanini bilish kabi…

Taqlīd is the adoption of another person’s opinion without a binding proof. So the acceptance of another person’s opinion without a binding proof is considered Taqlīd just as acting according to the opinion of another without a binding proof is considered Taqlīd. That is like the layman’s adoption of the opinion of a mujtahid or the adoption of the mujtahid of an opinion from someone like him. Referring to the Messenger PBUH is not Taqlīd to him and nor referring to the ijma’ of the Sahabah is Taqlīd to them because it constitutes referring to the evidence itself and not adopting the opinion of another. Likewise, the laymen’s reference to a mufti is not considered Taqlīd to him, rather it constitutes seeking a legal opinion and learning and not adoption. So he either refers to him to seek a legal verdict (fatwa) or to learn, that is, the reference of a layman to a learned person is not considered Taqlīd to him because it constitutes either inquiring about a hukm Shar’i or learning it. As for the adoption of an opinion with knowledge of its evidence, it will be looked into. If the knowledge of the evidence is mere knowledge, like knowing that visiting the graves is permitted because the Messenger PBUH said:

Demak, bu holatda u muqallid hisoblanadi, chunki u dalil bilsa ham, boshqaning fikrini bog'lovchi dalilsiz qabul qilgan. Biroq muqallidning o'zi bu dalilni isbot sifatida ishlatmagan, shuning uchun u uning uchun bog'lovchi dalil emas. Agar dalilni tushunish uni tekshirib chiqib, undan hukm chiqarilganidan keyin erishilgan bo'lsa, bu avvalgi fikr egasining ijtihodiga mos keladigan ijtihod hisoblanadi. Chunki bu jarayon hukmning ziddiyatli omildan xoli ekanini anglashga bog'liq bo'lib, bu esa dalillarni chuqur tekshirishni talab qiladi, buni esa faqat mujtahid qila oladi. Shuning uchun muqallid mujtahid emas. Shar'iy hukm yuzasidan odamlar yo mujtahid, yo muqallid bo'ladi, boshqa toifa yo'q. Ya'ni, u hukmni o'zi chiqaradi, garchi undan oldin boshqa biri chiqargan bo'lsa ham, yoki uni dastlabdan o'zi chiqaradi, yoki boshqa mujtahidning xulosasini qabul qiladi. Shuning uchun ijtihod qobiliyatiga ega bo'lmagan har kim muqallid hisoblanadi, u ijtihodga oid qonuniy fanlarning ba'zilaridan xabardor bo'lsa ham yoki bo'lmasa ham. Demak, u muqallid 'ammi (oddiy odam) yoki muttabi' toifasiga kiradi. Biroq muttabi' mujtahidning dalilini bilish sharti bilan taqlid qiladi, 'ammi esa hech qanday shartsiz taqlid qiladi.

Then in this situation he is considered a muqallid because he has adopted the opinion of another without a binding proof even if he knew the evidence. However, the muqallid himself did not use this evidence as proof so it is not a binding proof with respect to him. As for if an understanding of the evidence was arrived at after examining the evidence and then deducing the hukm from it, it is then regarded as an Ijtihād which agrees with the Ijtihād of the one who initially held this opinion. That is because this process depends on realizing that the Hukm is free of conflicting factor based on the necessity of studying it, a matter which depends on the close examination of the evidences, something only the Mujtahid can do. Therefore, the muqallid is not a mujtahid. People with regards to the hukm Shar’i are either mujtahid or muqallid and none other. i.e, either he deduces the hukm himself whether some one else had deduced it before or he himself deduced it from the onset or he adopts the deduction of another mujtahid. Therefore, whoever does not have the capacity for Ijtihād he is a muqallid irrespective of whether he had knowledge of some of the legally recognised disciplines in Ijtihād or not. So he falls under the category of muqallid ‘ammi (layman) or muttabi’. However, the muttabi’ imitates on condition that he knows the evidence of the mujtahid while the ‘ammi he imitates without any condition.

Muqallid uchun, mutta'biy bo'lsin yoki 'ammiy bo'lsin, har qanday mujtahidning fikrini qabul qilish joiz, agar uning bu fikri ijtihod ekani aniqlangan bo'lsa, hatto u yakka xabar (khabar ahad) bilan sobit bo'lgan bo'lsa ham. Agar unga masala ro'baro' kelib, u mujtahidlarning fikrlari bilan tanishmagan bo'lsa, lekin bitta mujtahidning fikrini bilsa, shu mujtahid chiqargan shar'iy hukmni qabul qilishi joiz, chunki undan talab qilinadigan narsa masalada shar'iy hukmni qabul qilishdir, mujtahidlarning fikrlariga ergashish emas. Bunday holatda undan tarjih talab qilinmaydi. Agar u mujtahidlarning fikrlaridan xabardor bo'lib, ulardan birini qabul qilishni istasa, u holda tarjih qilishdan boshqa narsa to'g'ri bo'lmaydi. Bu tarjih hukmni o'z havo-havaslariga yoki ko'rinib turgan manfaatga muvofiq qilinmasligi kerak, chunki Shariat maqsadi mukallafni havo-havas va nafs istaklaridan olib chiqish va uni Allohning haqiqiy bandasi qilishdir. Darhaqiqat, tarjih Shariat ustun deb bilgan sifatga ko'ra bo'lishi kerak, ya'ni bu sifat Allohga va Allohning Rasuli ﷺ ga bog'liq bo'lishi kerak. U zot ﷺ aytdilar:

Allohga va Uning Rasuliga murojaat qilish — bu Allohning kalomiga yoki Uning Rasulining sunnatiga, ya’ni shar’iy dalilga, ya’ni Alloh yoki Uning Rasuli buyurgan narsaga murojaat qilishdir. Shu sababli muqallidlarning ahvoliga ko‘ra tarjih qiluvchi sifatlar turlicha bo‘ladi. Ha, oddiy odam uchun umumiy tarjih sifati dalildan keyin eng yaxshi bilim va fahmga ega bo‘lgan kishidir. Va bu barcha muqallidlar uchun asosiy tarjih sifatidir. Biroq, eng yaxshi bilim bilan birga yoki undan holi, odamlar ustunlik berish uchun foydalanishi mumkin bo‘lgan boshqa turli tarjih sifatlari ham bor. Shunday qilib, oddiy odam mujtahidga, o‘zi bilgan odamlar orasidan, unga ergashuvchilarning fahmi va taqvosiga ishonganiga ko‘ra ergashadi, masalan, otasiga yoki ulamolardan biriga ishonganda, shunda u ularga ergashuvchilarga ergashadi. Oddiy odam uchun bunday tarjih dinning nuqtai nazaridan bo‘ladi, nafsining havoyi xohishi nuqtai nazaridan emas. Yana bir tarjih sifati shuki, oddiy odam fiqh, hadis va boshqa darslarda qatnashish orqali shar’iy hukmlarni va dalillarni biladi. Shu holatda u hukmlar bilan ularning dalillarini ajrata oladi. Bunday kishi taqlidda dalil bilan tanish bo‘lganiga ko‘ra ustunlik qiladi. Shuning uchun u o‘zi dalilini bilgan hukmga amal qiladi, u dalilini bilmagan hukm bilan ziddiyatga kelganda esa, dalilga bog‘langan hukm dalilga bog‘lanmagan hukmdan afzal bo‘ladi. Bu ikki holat oddiy odamga (avvom) tegishli; u Ijtihodning ayrim tan olingan ilmlaridan xabardor bo'lmagan har bir kishidir. Shunday ekan, bu barcha holatlarda oddiy odam uchun biror dalil ayon bo'lganda, u o'zi ergashgan mujtahid tarafdorlarining ilmiga va taqvosiga bo'lgan ishonchiga asoslangan taqlidni tark etishi va dalilga bog'liq bo'lgan hukmni qabul qilishi kerak, chunki endi uning oldida kuchliroq ustun sabab mavjud. Demak, Shofe'iyni yoki boshqalarni otasi ergashgani uchun ergashgan kishi, o'zi ergashmagan boshqa mujtahid tomonidan chiqarilgan shar'iy hukmning dalili unga ayon bo'lib, u shunga ishonsa, o'sha hukmni qabul qilishi lozim, chunki ustun sabab bo'lgan shar'iy dalil mavjud. Agar u unga ishonmasa, u holda o'zi ergashib kelayotgan hukmni tark etishga haqqi yo'q, chunki buni taqozo qiladigan ustun sabab yo'q. Tarjeehda (ustunlikni aniqlashda) u qarinalarni (qo'shimcha ishoralarni) tinglashga tayanadi. U (oddiy odam) xohish-istaklarga ko'ra turli mazhablarni qabul qilish haqqiga ega emas. Shuningdek, u har bir masalada o'ziga yengilroq bo'lgan mazhablarga ergashish haqqiga ham ega emas, balki hukmlarni tushunishda bir necha ma'no bo'lganda, ustun sababni izlashi kerak.

Referring to Allah  and to His Messenger  is either to the word of Allah  or the Sunnah of His Messenger  i.e, to the Sharī’ah evidence, either to what Allah  or His Messenger  has ordered. Consequently, the preponderant qualifications differ according to the different states of the muqallids. Yes, the general preponderant qualification for the layman is, subsequent to the evidence, the one who has the best knowledge and comprehension. And this is the primary preponderant qualifications for all muqallids. However, there are different preponderant qualifications which people may use to outweigh, with or without the preponderant qualification of best knowledge. So the layman follows a mujtahid according to his trust of the understanding and taqwa (God fearing) of the ones who follow him, from the people he knows, like when he trusts his father or one of the ‘Ulama, so he follows the ones who follow him. This tarjeeh (outweighing) for the ‘ammi (layman) is from the perspective of the deen and not the perspective of his whims. Or, another preponderant qualification is that the layman knows the Sharī’ah rules and the evidences by attending lessons on fiqh, hadīth etc. At that point he is able to distinguish between rules and their evidences. This person outweighs in Taqlīd according to his acquaintance with the evidence. So he follows the hukm the evidence for which he is familiar with, when it contradicts with a hukm the evidence for which he is not acquainted with, He will then have a hukm which is linked to an evidence which is preferable to a hukm which is not linked to an evidence. These two situations apply to the layman; who is anyone who does not have knowledge of some of the recognised disciplines in Ijtihād Therefore, the layman in all of these situations, when an evidence becomes manifest to him, he must leave the Taqlīd that is based on his trust of the knowledge and taqwa of those who follow the mujtahid whom he follows and adopt the hukm which is linked to an evidence, because now he has a stronger preponderant qualification. So whoever used to follow Shafi’i or others because his father used to follow him, when the evidence of a hukm Shar’i, which had been deduced by a mujtahid other than the one he followed, becomes manifest to him and he believes in it, then he must adopt that hukm due to the presence of a stronger preponderant qualification which is the Sharī’ah evidence. And if he did not believe in it, then he does not have the right to leave the hukm he has been following since he has no preponderant qualification to warrant it. In the outweighing (tarjeeh), he relies on the hearing of indications (qara’in). He (the layman) does not have the right - to adopt different mazhabs based on whims. And nor does he have the right to follow the mazhabs in every issue which is easier for him, rather he must seek a preponderant qualification when there is more than one understanding for the ahkām.