A common ingredient in most controversies that persist in defying resolution is viewing today’s problems in light of past circumstances or considering yesteryears’ issues (and their solutions) in today’s settings. The issue of taqleed is no exception. There is no dearth, therefore, of those who wonder how dense one has to be in order to acquiesce to a framework that makes it mandatory to follow blindly and exclusively the opinion of one school of thought, howsoever lacking in sense it may be. Large though this group is, it is outnumbered by those who wonder how somebody can be foolish enough to insist on reinventing every wheel by opining anew on all issues that were settled long ago.
The fact of the matter is that the issue of taqleed is a whole different animal today than it used to be in the bygone centuries. Therefore, it follows directly that the sensible position on the issue today would be very different from the sensible position on it in an earlier day and age. If only this is appreciated, along with the always crucial question of the subject– in this case, the individual that is supposed to shun or rely on taqleed– then it can be readily seen that there is much more trouble surrounding the issue than there needs to be.
The sensible position today, and at all times in the past, is that while scholars are not supposed to depend on taqleed (they must form their opinions from original sources instead), the layman possesses neither the competence nor the time to consider every question from first principles. The latter therefore has no option but to rely on the opinion of the scholar(s) he trusts. The proper conduct for him in religious matters then is no different from how he acts when it is a legal or a medical problem he is facing: namely, seeking the opinion of an expert or experts (in case he is not satisfied with one opinion). This is how matters stood in the first few generations after the Prophet (peace be upon him).
The uncompromising position that one must stick exclusively to one jurisprudence school is of later vintage. And it is in this meaning that the term taqleed has come to mean, as opposed to its original meaning of a man accepting and following the opinion of a scholar without critiquing it himself. This requirement to confine oneself to one school causes no end of trouble and unnecessary friction today, but it has its roots in a perfectly legitimate need, although few moderns are informed enough to appreciate this today.
As the Islamic state suddenly expanded 14 centuries ago, a uniform code of law for nearby lands as well as those far away from the centre, became more and more necessary. Since it was the religious scholars who doubled as judges in the Islamic state, administratively it made sense for all judges to conform to one code, lest there be differing verdicts on the same issue depending on the judge. Historically, it so happened that those in power first embraced and patronized the Hanafi school (later, the other schools also won acceptance in various periods and geographies). It only made sense for the public to know and conform to the particular school according to which the state judges were going to judge. This was nothing more than an administrative decision, absolutely not a religious one as many continue to believe to this day.
Both the Salafi and the Jurist sides claim (as do all Muslims) that the Quran occupies the central, governing and overruling position in their understanding of religion. The facts unfortunately indicate otherwise. For this whole taqleed issue (along with a host of other issues) would have been seen differently and hence resolved long ago had that been the case. What is more, there is no indication of things changing for the better any time soon.
Those among the masses who do not appreciate this distinction are guilty of using, in a derogatory manner, the label ‘ghair muqallid’ for those who reject taqleed. There are also those who do it while they know full well, but they are generally among the leaders who do it for some ulterior motive. Mala fide can never be ruled out when it comes to the leaders of any group of men.
Those, on the other hand, who call themselves Salafis or Ahl-al-Hadees, insist on relying on prophetic narrations in contrast to the opinion of jurists; referring to the first group, often derogatorily so, as Ahl-al-rai (people of opinion). This position appears extremely sound, for what could be a better guide than reports of the words and actions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to understand the Quran and the religion in general? As a motto therefore, it sounds impeccable, but only until it is subjected to closer scrutiny. The shortcoming of this literalist approach is that, whether right or wrong on any given issue, the jurisprudence schools at least consider every issue inside a framework. Hence, there is some sort of coherence and consistency in their respective systems. In contrast, no such coherence can be expected from the Ahl-al-Hadees who consider every issue in isolation or on a case-by-case basis relying on scattered narrations that seldom come with their complete context and that are even more rarely reported verbatim.
Both the Salafi and the Jurist sides claim (as do all Muslims) that the Quran occupies the central, governing and overruling position in their understanding of religion. The facts unfortunately indicate otherwise. For this whole taqleed issue (along with a host of other issues) would have been seen differently and hence resolved long ago had that been the case. What is more, there is no indication of things changing for the better any time soon.
