在前面的章节中，我们追溯了Fiqh（伊斯兰教法学）与各学派（Madh-habs）的历史发展，展示了它们之间的相互关系，以及它们对于人们在总体上和具体层面上理解《古兰经》和《圣训》所启示的伊斯兰教所作出的贡献。应当指出的是，Fiqh（伊斯兰法）与Madh-habs（伊斯兰思想学派）过去和现在都是必要的补充，它们补足了神圣的启示。这些启示确立了规范人与安拉之间、以及人与同胞之间权利与责任的基本原则。正是通过对《古兰经》和《圣训》进行具体的解释与应用，安拉的神圣旨意才能随着时间与空间，向人类彰显。凭借安拉所赐予的理智能力，人（特别是伊斯兰学者）能够对一般性原则作出相应的诠释，以适应具体的情况：由此便产生了Madh-hab（伊斯兰学者群体）与Fiqh（伊斯兰法律的整体，以及推导这些法律的原则）的现实意义。这正是Fiqh与Madh-hab在伊斯兰教中的真正重要性所在。

In the preceding chapters we have traced the historical development of Fiqh and the Madh-habs, showing their interrelationship and their contribution to a general, as well as specific, understanding of Islaam as revealed in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. It should be noted that both Fiqh (Islamic law) and the Madh-habs (schools of Islamic thought) were and are necessary additions complementing the divine revelations which define the basic principles giverning man’s rights and responsibilities in his relationships with Allaah and his fellow man. It is through specific applications of the interpretations of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah that Allaah’s divine will can be made manifest to man over time and through space. With God-given intellectual powers man (specifically Islamic scholars) can provide relevant interpretations of the general to meet the particular: thence relevance of the Madh-hab (the circle of Islamic scholars) and Fiqh (the body of Islamic laws together with principles for deducing these laws). Herein lies the true importance of Fiqh and the Madh-hab in Islaam.

既然伊斯兰教是为所有人、在所有时代、所有地域所确立的宗教,学者们便在不同地区、不同时代致力于发展伊斯兰教法(Fiqh)的原则与具体律例,以解决随时出现的各种新问题。他们所作解释的正确性,取决于其与生俱来的能力,以及他们在裁决时所能掌握的证据的类型与数量。有些学者还面临文化差异的额外因素;许多人则因与同行相隔遥远、沟通困难,而无法借助相互协商所能获得的帮助。因此,各地便产生了不同的观点。尽管处境艰难,早期学者仍以真主所赋予的理智能力来诠释真主为人类所定的旨意,从而履行了他们对伊斯兰教和对同胞的职责。他们分布在穆斯林国家的不同地区,成为不同伊斯兰学派的奠基者,因此在伊斯兰法与穆斯林国家发展的某个阶段,出现了众多教法学派(Madh-hab)。从历史来看,出现不止一个教法学派是必然的。此外,随着教法学派数量的增加,以及交通与其他因素的影响,分歧与矛盾也自然随之而来。然而,只要学者们始终把追求真理放在首位,不被宗派主义、狂热或追求个人名声与回报的欲望所误导,伊斯兰教的基本精神便能在他们的教法学派中得以保存。在这种情况下,学者们并不勉强固守自己的个人见解,而是乐于放弃之,转而采纳他人更接近从《古兰经》和《逊奈》中可推导出的本义的裁决。 换句话说，在前面提到的消极因素（宗派主义和对个人荣誉的追求）在一些学者的生活中占据主导地位之前，对真理的探求一直在持续。此后，盲目遵从某一学派（Taqleed）加上禁止Ijtihaad（独立判断），导致宗派主义在民众中广泛传播，许多学者对真理的探求也普遍衰落。

Now since Islaam is a religion divinely ordained for all men at all times and in all climes, it was given to scholars in different regions and times to evolve principles of Fiqh as well as specific laws of Fiqh in order to resolve various new issues as they arose. The correctness of their interpretations was proportional to their innate capabilities and to the type and quantity of evidence available to them at the time of making rulings. Some were faced with the additional factor of cultural differences, and many were deprived of the assistance to be gained from mural consultation, owing to their distance from their colleagues and the consequent difficulties of communication. Hence the differences of opinion that arose from region to region. Despite various handicaps, the early scholars discharged their duties to Islaam and to their fellowmen by using their God-given powers of intellect to interpret Allaah’s purposes for men. Situated in different parts of the Muslim state, they became the founders of different schools of Islamic thought, hence the multiplication of Madh-habs at one stage in the evolution of the Islamic law and the Muslim state. Historically, therefore, the appearance of more than one Madh-hab was inevitable. Furthermore, as the numbers of Madh-habs increased and communication and other factors exercised their influence, difference and contradictions, too, were a natural outcome. However, so long as scholars managed to keep the goal to truth foremost in mind and were not led astray by sectarianism, fanaticism, or a desire for personal glory and reward, the essential spirit of Islaam was preserved in their Madh-habs. In such circumstances, scholars were in no way reluctant to abandon their individual opinions in favor of rulings by others which were clearly shown to be nearer the intended meaning deducible from the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. In others words, there was a continuing search for truth up until such time as the negative factors previously mentioned (sectarianism and desire for personal glory) became dominant in the lives of some of the scholars. Then, indeed, blind following of Madh-hab (Taqleed) coupled with the ban on Ijtihaad led to the widespread promotion of sectarianism among the masses and the general decline in the search for truth among many scholars.

此后，四大教法学派幸存下来，它们的裁决各有不同，有时甚至相互矛盾，却被赋予了不可置疑的权威性质，于是出现了伪造的圣训来巩固这一有悖伊斯兰精神的倾向。为了扭转这种衰落，历代各种改革运动呼吁统一各教法学派，或者在某些情况下主张完全不必遵循任何教法学派。前一种主张是正当的，正如我们已经阐明的；后一种则是极端的，甚至可能属于异端，因为它忽视了统一的伊斯兰学术体系对于《古兰经》和逊奈的必要补充作用，而这种体系有助于人们更好地理解和领会安拉的神圣律法。

Thereafter, the four survining Madh-habs, with their different and sometimes contradictory rulings, assumed the character of infallibility, and spurious Hadeeths arose to bolster this anti-Islamic trait. As a counter to this decline, various reform movements through the ages have called for a unification of the Madh-habs or, in some cases, rejection of the need for any Madh-hab. The former position is a legitimate one, as we have shown; the latter is an extremist one, possibly heretical since it overlooks the importance of a unified school of Islamic thought as a necessary complement to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, for a better understanding and appreciation of Allaah’s divine laws.

从前面各章所述的伊斯兰教法（Fiqh）历史发展以及各学派的演变中，我们看到，曾有一个时期，各学派之间原本自然存在的差异被极度夸大，以至于演变为派系之争。当时的学者因此放弃了独立思考（Ijtihaad），并强迫普通穆斯林盲目遵从（Taqleed）四大学派之一。然而，四大学派所归属的各位伊玛目本人，却完全反对将这些分歧神圣化，并极力反对自己的追随者乃至一般民众的盲目遵从。然而直到今天，仍有许多人认为：如果接受一段真实可靠的圣训意味着宣布自己学派的伊玛目判断有误，那就应当弃置这段圣训，在他们看来，这是一种近乎亵渎的不敬行为。他们却没有意识到，把自己伊玛目的意见置于先知（愿主赐福并使其平安）的圣训之上，本身就与他们的伊玛目所采取的立场完全相悖，而且实际上已接近一种被称为“Shirk fee Tawheed alIttibaa‘”（在遵从的统一性上以物配主）的举动，即把本应只归于先知（愿主赐福并使其平安）的无条件遵从分给了他人。因为在宣读伊斯兰信仰的证词时（“除安拉外别无应受崇拜者，穆罕默德是安拉的使者”），先知（愿主赐福并使其平安）被确认为唯一应当被无条件遵从的人，因为遵从他就等同于遵从安拉。

From the historical development of Fiqh and the evolution of the Madh-habs described in the preceding chapters, we have seen that there was a period during which natural differences among the various Madh-habs became extremely exaggerated to the point of sectarianism, so much so that scholars of that time discarded Ijtihaad and imposed upon the generality of Muslims the blind following (Taqleed) of one of the four major Madh-habs. However, the Imaams to whom the four schools are attributed were themselves totally against the enthronement of these differences and fought vehemently against Taqleed either among their own followers or among the masses in general. Yet, till today, many people feel that if an authentic Hadeeth should be discarded because, accepting it would mean declaring that the Imaam of one’s Madh-hab was mistaken in his ruling which, in their opinion is an act of disrespect akin to blasphemy. Little do they realize that their preference of their Imaam’s opinion over the Prophet’s (s.w.) statement is itself in total opposition to the stand taken by their own Imaam, and is in fact bordering on a form of Shirk198 known as “Shirk fee Tawheed alIttibaa‘”, that is sharing the unquestioned following which belongs only to the Prophet (s.w.). For in the declaration of one’s Islaam (there is no god but Allaah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allaah), the Prophet (s.w.) is accepted as being the only person who should be followed unquestioningly, since following him is equivalent to following Allaah.

鉴于当今大多数穆斯林并未意识到早期伊玛目的立场与当今其所属教法学派的立场之间存在矛盾,因此有必要仔细审视早期伊玛目及其弟子对taqleed（盲从/效仿）的态度，从他们的实际言论中加以考察。

As most Muslims today are unaware of the contradiction between the position of the early Imaams hand that of their Madhhab is it exists today, it is appropriate there to take a closer look at the stand taken by the early Imaams and their students towards Taqleed as revealed in their actual statements.