Q. "There
are some people who say that Taqleed, following the madhhab of one imam
is haram (prohibited) in shariah. They insist that only the Quran
and sunnah should be followed by a true Muslim, and it is tantamount to
the shirk that some human being is followed in the matters of Shariah.
They also claim that all the madhahib formed as Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki
and Hanbali schools are created two hundred years after the Holy Prophet
(Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam) and they are bidah (an invention not warranted
by the Quran and Sunnah). They also maintain that a Muslim should
seek guidance directly from the Quran and sunnah, and no intervention
of any Imam is needed for the knowledge of Shariah. Please explain
how far this view is correct.
(Hussain Ahmad, London).
A. This view is based on certain misconceptions arising out superfluous
treatment of the complex issues involved. The full clarification of these
misconceptions requires a detailed article. However, I would try to explain
the basic points as briefly as possible.
1. It is true that "obedience", in its true sense, belongs
to Allah Almighty alone. He is the only One Who deserves our obedience,
and we are not supposed to obey any one other than Him. This is the logical
requirement of the doctrine of "Tauhid" (belief in the Oneness
of Allah). Even the obedience of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam)
has been prescribed for us only because he is the Messenger of Allah who
conveys to us the divine commandments. Otherwise he has no divine status
deserving our obedience per se. We are ordered to obey and follow him
only because Allah's pleasure has been epitomized in his sayings and acts.
We are therefore, required to follow the Holy Quran, being the direct
commandment of Allah, and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihi
Wassallam) being an indirect form of the divine commandments.
But the point is that the interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah is not
an easy job. It requires an intensive and extensive study of both the
sacred sources of Shariah, which cannot be undertaken by every layman.
If it is made obligatory on each and every Muslim to consult the Holy
Quran and the Sunnah in each and every problem arising before him, it
will burden him with a responsibility which is almost impossible for him
to discharge, because the inference of the rules Shariah from the
Quran and sunnah requires a thorough knowledge of the Arabic language
and all the relevant material which a layman is not supposed to have.
The only solution of this problem is that a group of persons should equip
itself with the required knowledge of Shariah, and the others should
ask them about the injunctions of Shariah in their day-to-day affairs.
This is exactly what the Holy Quran has ordained for the Muslims
in the following words:
So, a section from each group of them should go forth, so that they
may acquire the knowledge perception in the matters of religion, and so
that they may warn their people when they turn back to them that they
may be watchful.
This verse of the Holy Quran indicates in clear terms that a group of
Muslims should devote it self for acquiring the knowledge of Shariah,
and all others should consult them in the matters of Shariah.
Now, if a person asks an authentic alim (knowledgeable person) about
the Shariah ruling in a specific matter, and acts upon his advice,
can a reasonable person accuse him of committing shirk on the ground that
he has followed the advice of a human being instead of Quran and
sunnah? Certainly no. The reason is obvious. He has not abandoned the
obedience of Allah and His Messenger; rather, he wants nothing but to
obey them. However, being ignorant of their commands, he has consulted
an alim in order to know what he is required by Allah to do. He
has not taken that 'alim as the subject of his obedience, but he has taken
him as an interpreter of the divine commands. Nobody can blame him for
committing shirk.
This is exactly what the term taqleed means. A person who has no ability
to understand the Holy Quran and Sunnah consults a Muslim jurist,
often termed as Imam, and acts according to his interpretation of Shariah.
He never deems him worthy of obedience per se, but he seeks his guidance
for knowing the requirements of Shariah, because he has no direct
access to the Holy Quran and sunnah or has no adequate knowledge
for infering the rules of Shariah from them. This behavior is called
taqleed of that jurist or imam. How can it be said that taqleed is tantamount
to shirk?
The qualified Muslim jurists or imams have devoted their lives for the
study of the Holy Quran and sunnah and have collected the rules
of Shariah; according to their respective interpretation of Shariah,
in an almost codified form. This collection of the Shariah rules
according to the interpretation of a particular jurist is called the 'madhhab'
of that jurist. Thus the madhhab of an imam is not something paralell
to Shariah, or something alien to it; in fact it is a particular
interpretation of Shariah and a collection of the major Shariah
rules inferred from the Holy Quran and sunnah by some authentic
jurists and arranged subjectwise for the convenience of the followers
of the Shariah. So, the one who follows a particular madhhab actually
follows the Holy Quran and sunnah according to the interpretation
of a particular authentic jurist whom he believes to be the most trustworthy
and the most knowledgeable in the matters of Shariah.
As for the difference of the madhahib it has emerged through the different
possible interpretations of the rules mentioned in or inferred from the
Holy Quran and sunnah.
In order to understand this point properly, it will be pertinent to note
that the rules mentioned in the Holy Quran and sunnah are of two
different types. Some rules are mentioned in these Holy Sources in such
a clear and unambiguous expressions that they admit only one interpretation,
and no other interpretation is possible thereof, such as the obligation
of Salah, Zakah, fasting and Hajj, the prohibition of pork, wine, etc.
etc. With regard to this set of rules, no difference of opinion has ever
taken place. All the schools of jurists are unanimous on their interpretation,
hence there is no room for ijtihad or taqleed in these matters, and because
every layman can easily understand them from the Holy Quran and
sunnah, no intervention of a jurist or imam is called for. But there are
some rules of Shariah derived from the Holy Quran and Sunnah
where either of the following different situations may arise:
1. The expression used in the Holy Sources may admit more than
one interpretation. For example, while mentioning the period of 'iddah
(waiting period) for the divorced women, the Holy Quran has used
the following expression:
And
the divorced shall wait for three periods of Qur'.
The word 'Qur' used in this verse has two meanings logically. It stands
both for the period of menstruation and the period of cleanliness i.e.
the tuhr. Both meanings are possible in the verse and each of them has
different legal consequences. The question that requires juristic efforts
is as to which of the two meanings are intended here. While answering
this question the juristic opinions may naturally differ, and have actually
differed. Imam Shafii interprets the word 'Qur' as the period of
tuhr while Imam Abu Hanifah interprets it as 'the period of menstruation.'
Both of them have a number of arguments in support of their respective
views, and no one can be rejected outright. It is in this way that the
difference among certain madhahib has emerged.
2. Sometimes there appears some sort of contradiction between
two traditions of the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam) and a
jurist has to reconcile between them or prefer one of them over the other.
In this case also, the viewpoints of the jurists may differ from each
other.
For example, there are two sets of traditions found in the books of hadith
attributing different behaviors to the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihi
Wassallam) while going for ruku in prayer. The first set of ahadith mentions
that he used to raise his hands before bowing down for ruku while the
other traditions mention that he did not raise his hands except in the
beginning of the Salah.
The Muslim jurists, while accepting that both ways are correct, have expressed
different views about the question which of the two ways is more advisable.
This is another cause of difference between various madhahib.
3. There are many problems or issues which have not been mentioned
in the Holy Quran and Sunnah in specific or express terms. The solution
of such problems is sought either through analogy or through some expressions
found in the Holy Sources which have an indirect bearing on the subject.
Here again the jurists may have different approaches while they infer
the required solution from the Holy Quran and Sunnah.
Such are the basic causes of difference between the madhahib. This difference
is in no way a defect in Shariah; rather, it is a source of dynamism
and flexibility and a vast field of academic research within the framework
of the principles of Shariah settled by the Holy Quran and
Sunnah for all times to come.
A Muslim jurist who has all the necessary qualifications for ijtihad is
supposed, in the aforesaid situation, to exert the best of his efforts
to find out the actual intention of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. If
he does this to the best of his ability and with all his sincerity, his
obligation towards Allah is discharged, and nobody can blame him for violating
the Shariah, even though his view seems to be weaker when compared
to the other ones.
This is a natural and logical phenomenon certain to be found in every
legal system. The enacted laws in every legal framework do not contain
each and every minute detail of the possible situations. The expressions
used in a statute are often open to more than one interpretation, and
different courts of law, while applying such provisions to the practical
situations, often disagree in the matter of their interpretation. One
court explains the law in a particular way while the other court takes
it in a quite different sense. Nobody ever blames any one of them for
the violation of the law. Since every court of law intends to apply the
statute law to the best of its ability its duty towards the law-maker
is discharged. Another court of law can differ from the conclusions drawn
by the former one, but the judges of the former court can never be accused
of violating the law.
Not only this, if the former court is a High Court, all the lower courts
and all the people living within the jurisdiction of that High Court are
bound jurisdiction of that High Court are bound to follow the interpretation
laid down by it even though their personal opinion does not conform to
the approach of the superior court. In this case, if they follow the decision
of the superior Court nobody can say that they are not following the law,
or that they are holding the Court as the Sovereign authority instead
of the real legislator, because, in fact, they are following the decision
of the Court only as a trustworthy interpreter of the law, and not as
a legislator.
Exactly in the same way, the madhhab of a Muslim jurist is nothing but
a credible interpretation of the Shariah. Another competent jurist
may disagree with this interpretation, but he can never accuse him of
the violation of Shariah, nor can anyone blame the followers of
that particular madhhab for following something other than Shariah,
or for committing shirk by following the imam of that madhhab instead
of obeying Allah and His Messenger, because, they are following the madhhab
as a credible interpretation of Shariah, and not as a law-making
authority.
The next question which may arise here is what a layman should do with
regard to these different madhahib, and which one of them should be followed.
Answer to this question is very simple. All of these madhahib being sincere,
competent efforts to find out the true intention of Shariah. All
of them are equally true, and a layman should follow the madhhab of any
one of the recognized imams whom he believes to be more knowledgeable
and more pious. Although the Muslim jurists who have undertaken the exercise
of ijtihad are many in number, yet the madhahib of the four jurists are
more comprehensive, well-arranged and well-preserved even today, and the
Muslim ummah as a whole has taken them as the most reliable interpretations
of Shariah. These four madhahib are called Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki
and Hanbali schools. All the rest of madhahib are either not comprehensive
in the sense that they do not contain all aspects of Shariah or
they have not been preserved in a reliable form. That is why the majority
of the Muslim Ummah belongs to either of these four madhahib, and if a
layman adopts any one of these schools in the matter of interpretation
of the Shariah, his obligation of following the Shariah stands
fulfilled.
This is the true picture of the term 'taqleed' with reference to the recognized
juristic madhahib. I hope this explanation will be able to satisfy your
question and will be sufficient to establish that 'taqleed' has nothing
to do with shirk. It is, in fact a simple and easy way to follow the Shariah.
|