This is an issue that Salafis frequently bring up. They argue that there is a difference between taqleed and ittiba‘. Taqleed, they say, is blind following of the opinions of men with no knowledge (or regard) for what Allah and His Messenger say, and this is haram. Many of them would argue that those who blindly follow the four schools fall into this category.
Ittiba‘, according to them, is a level between taqleed and ijtihad. It is where the follower acquaints himself with the evidence used by a mujtahid and in doing so, he takes himself out of “blind following of the opinions of men” and instead is following Allah and His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace).
This distinction between taqleed and ittiba‘ is inspired by Shaykh Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1250 A.H.), who claimed ijtihad and authored many books, among them a book in usul al-fiqh called Irshad al-Fuhul, and a small treatise on taqlid and ijtihad called al-Qawl al-Mufid fi Adillat al-Ijtihad wa’l-Taqleed. In both these books, he made some outrageous remarks regarding ijtihad and taqleed. The late Shaykh Muhammad Hasanayn al-Makhluf (Allah have mercy on him) wrote a book called Bulugh al-Suul fi Madkhal ‘Ilm al-Usul, where he discussed and refuted Shaykh al-Shawkani’s aberrant positions.
He discussed the issue of ittiba‘ vs. taqleed in his book, saying (I have boldfaced certain parts to draw attention to important sections),
“The definition of taqleed—as mentioned by Ibn al-Subki and others—is to act on someone else’s position without knowledge of his evidence … Jalal al-Mahalli said in his commentary on this definition:
‘His saying without knowledge of his evidence excludes acting on his position with knowledge of his evidence, for this would constitute an ijtihad that agrees with the ijtihad of the one he is following, since only a mujtahid can know the evidence because its knowledge is dependent on knowing that it is unblemished by contrary evidences. This is based on the position that it is obligatory on him to investigate [h: the evidence], which is dependent on complete knowledge of all the evidences, and no one is able to do this except a mujtahid.’
Shaykh al-Islam [h: Zakariyya al-Ansari] explained this by saying that only a mujtahid can know the evidence in a manner that establishes the ruling.
Regardless, what is meant by their [h: i.e., the scholars of usul al-fiqh] saying without knowledge of its evidence is: without complete knowledge of its evidence. This [h: complete knowledge] is the knowledge that enables the extraction of a ruling based on ijtihad (istinbat ijtihadi) … whose prerequisite is that the conditions mentioned in the books of usul [h: for a person to be a mujtahid] be met.
So taqleed includes both (1) the taqleed of a non-scholar (‘aammi) when he doesn’t know the evidence of the mujtahid he is following and (2) [h: his taqleed] when he knows the evidence, but not in a complete manner, meaning that he knows how it indicates [h: the ruling] but he does not know it in a manner that establishes the ruling [h: because he is not a mujtahid].
Madh-hab mujtahids and fatwa-mujtahids [h: discussed above] both fall into this category [h: i.e, they are muqallids], for their adopting the position of an absolute mujtahid falls under taqleed and does not fall under the ijtihad described above.” (Bulugh al-Suul, 23)
In other words, the Salafi aspersion is incorrect because as long as someone is unable to make ijtihad, they cannot really know the evidence used by the mujtahid they are following. All they know is a hadith or ayah quoted in support of the position. They don’t have knowledge of all the other evidences or the rules of deducing Shari‘ah laws from their primary texts, which is the only way in which they would truly understand the evidence. This is why muqallids are not permitted to deduce detailed fiqh rulings directly from hadiths, and this is why they must follow their madh-hab even if they see a hadith that seems contrary to the position of the madh-hab.
Ibn ‘Abideen mentions something similar is his ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti, as was quoted by Sidi Faraz on the Hanafi list a while ago.
Taqleed in ‘Aqida
You are right. Taqleed is not permissible in matters of belief. One must believe because one is convinced of what one believes; not merely because someone else believes. This issue is discussed in detail in the classical books of Ash‘ari ‘aqida, such as the Jawharat al-Tawhid and the commentaries on the Sanusiyya.
The Upshot
- One is either a mujtahid or a muqallid; there is no third category.
- If one is a mujtahid, one must derive rulings directly from the primary texts; it is haram for a mujtahid to make taqleed.
- If one is a muqallid, one must make taqleed of a mujtahid (this is only possible today by following one of the four Sunni schools); it is haram for a muqallid to follow his own understanding of the primary texts.
- It is not obligatory for a muqallid to know the proof behind a particular ruling. It is sufficient for him to know that it is the position of a mujtahid (in our times, this means to know that it is a reliable position of one of the four Sunni schools).
- A muqallid who reads the evidence used by a mujtahid to arrive at a particular position does not really understand what is going on. Such evidences “warm his heart” but until he becomes a mujtahid, he cannot fully understand how these evidences can be used to support the position in question.
And Allah knows best.
Hamza Karamali
