(Part 33)
The Seventh Topic: The Rules of Imitation
The Ruling on Imitation (Taqleed)
As previously stated, taqlid (imitation or following others without evidence) in the fundamentals and constants of religion is deemed impermissible by the majority. However, when it comes to taqlid in subsidiary religious rulings—of which general principles exist in religious texts and are derived by jurists based on their ijtihad, taking into consideration the temporal and spatial contexts, as well as the overarching legal and religious principles—there is a difference of opinion among scholars.
Regarding imitation of practical branches of the Sharia, there are two major differences of opinion among scholars.
The First Speech: The Obligation of Ijtihad
The Obligation of Ijtihad and the Prohibition of Imitation
The first viewpoint on taqlid holds that the general public is required to perform ijtihad (independent reasoning) themselves and extract daily religious rulings directly from the primary sources of religion. Proponents of this theory believe that taqlid is absolutely prohibited. (Al-Shawkani, 1419 AH, 2/244). According to this opinion, statements are attributed to the four imams indicating that each of them categorically prohibited taqlid, and some even claimed a consensus on the matter.
However, this may conflate imitation in foundational beliefs with that in jurisprudential branches. The argument against imitation arises from the definition adopted by some scholars: accepting someone’s opinion without evidence. Based on this definition, they argue such imitation has no proof or authority and is thus impermissible.
It seems that in this context, there is a confusion between taqlid in the fundamentals of religion and taqlid in jurisprudential branches. The basis for ruling against or permitting taqlid in subsidiary matters is that scholars have not agreed on a unified definition of taqlid. Those who define taqlid as “accepting someone’s statement without evidence” argue that the saying of a muqallid (one who imitates) has no proof or reasoning behind it other than the opinion or action of the jurist. Based on this definition, they have ruled that taqlid is impermissible. However, this does not contradict the general practice of laypeople consulting scholars and muftis, which is accepted and endorsed by all scholars. Those who hold this view do not consider asking scholars to be taqlid but rather see it as “following.” Ibn Hazm considers it obligatory for a layperson to ask the mufti for the evidence behind their fatwa.
Imitation in The Present Age
