بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
I'm writing this article after having had a discussion about Taqleed vs Itibaa', this article, by the will of Allah, will be use the books of the Hanaabilah as well as some of the statements of the Modern day scholars of Saudi Arabia to establish the definition of these two terms, and the difference between them.
Muwafiq u-Deen Ibn
Qudaama Al-Maqdisi (620 H.) said in Rawdhatu An-Naadhir[1],
"At-Taqleed: Means to put something on the neck of someone and to encompass it (a collar.)....And it's used in regards to relinquishing a matter to another person by the way of putting the matter on him for a specific time, as if he has tied that issue to the person's neck (to take care of.)
As for the Islamic meaning, the scholars of Fiqh have defined it as; Accepting the statement of someone else without proof.”[2][3][4]
"At-Taqleed: Means to put something on the neck of someone and to encompass it (a collar.)....And it's used in regards to relinquishing a matter to another person by the way of putting the matter on him for a specific time, as if he has tied that issue to the person's neck (to take care of.)
As for the Islamic meaning, the scholars of Fiqh have defined it as; Accepting the statement of someone else without proof.”[2][3][4]
Ibn Najjaar Al-Hanbali
(972 H.) said in Mukhtasar At-Tahreer[5] that Taqleed means,
“Accepting the methodology (madhab) of someone else without knowing the Daleel (he used to come to that conclusion.)”
“Accepting the methodology (madhab) of someone else without knowing the Daleel (he used to come to that conclusion.)”
Al-Imam
Abdul Mu’min Al-Hanbali (739 H.) said in Tayseer al-Wusool ilaa Qawaa’id
al-Usool wa Ma’aqid al-Fusool[6],
“That
which isn’t part of Taqleed is taking the Prophet's (Peace and blessings be upon him) statement”
This is because the Prophet's (Peace and blessings be upon him) statements are proof in themselves.
“Likewise,
taking Al-Ijma’ (Scholarly consensus) is not considered Taqleed.”
Because it is proof in itself as well.
“Then Abu Al-Khattaab Al-Khalwadhaani Al-Hanbali (510 H.) said: “Knowledge is of two types, that which doesn’t allow Taqleed to be performed in it, such as the foundations (Knowing Allah and His oneness, and the authenticity of the Message and that which is similar to that.”
The
Following is the explanation of the text by Sh. Abdallah Al-Fawzaan.
“So
the two types of knowledge mentioned by him are:
1)That which is not allowed to do Taqleed
in, such as the foundations, meaning the
foundations of the religion that are obligatory upon one to believe in, such as
the existence of Allah, and His Oneness, and knowing the authenticity of the
message (of al-Islaam) , and Abu Al-Khattab says that this is the statement of many of the
scholars, and this is because beliefs require certainty , and Taqleed can only
be used in relation to issues that are Dhani (supposed, proofs that aren't entirely clear as to what the intended meaning was and thus can be interpreted differently), and in regards to Dhani Proofs it’s
possible to make a mistake in them without being sinful.
The second opinion in this regard is that it’s permissible to do Taqleed in the Foundations (Usool) of the religion (this is also the opinion of Uthaymeen See Al-Aqeedah As-Safaareeniyah pg 308), and this is because of the generality of Allahs statement “Ask the people of remembrance (the scholars) if you do not know.” An-Nahl:43 and this verse was in relation to confirming the authenticity of the message, and before that verse it says “We have not sent before you except men that we have inspired to him…” and this is part of the foundations of the religion, and a layman cannot always determine the truth from proofs, so if they are excused for not knowing the truth, there is nothing left except Taqleed because of the statement of Allah, “Fear Allah as much as you are able.”At-Taghaabun:16, and if Taqleed were prohibited for them then it would lead them to their misguidance, and laymen are the majority of the Islamic nation, and them being misguided wouldn’t be permissible under these circumstances.
As
for that which enters into the Usool of the religion, the foundational acts of
worship, like the five prayers, fasting the month of Ramadhaan, Hajj, Zakaah, and
all that which must be known in the religion in all aspects and obligations,
and likewise from that is knowing that Usury , Adultery, and drinking alcohol are not permissible, so in these things (according to the first opinion) it is not
allowed for one to do Taqleed, because the knowledge of these things have been
preserved and passed down in numerous numbers (Mutawaatir), and therefore the
knowledge of the layman is that of the scholar in this regard.
2) As for the second type of knowledge, then these are the branches, so that which enters into this category are the rulings regarding transactions, or marriage, or punishments, and other than those that branches off from the main topics of worship or contracts, and in these issues Taqleed is permissible, so a Layman does Taqleed to a scholar, because a Layman does not (always) have the ability to know the ruling, and Allah says “So ask the people of remembrance (the scholars) if you do not know."
2) As for the second type of knowledge, then these are the branches, so that which enters into this category are the rulings regarding transactions, or marriage, or punishments, and other than those that branches off from the main topics of worship or contracts, and in these issues Taqleed is permissible, so a Layman does Taqleed to a scholar, because a Layman does not (always) have the ability to know the ruling, and Allah says “So ask the people of remembrance (the scholars) if you do not know."
So
in this second type the Layman follows the scholar who is capable of giving rulings
for issues that the Layman may face, and there is no difference of opinion in
regards to the permissibility of this, however he shouldn’t stick to only one
person (thinking that he has to stick to only that one person.) Rather he can
ask one scholar regarding one issue, and then another in another issue, so this layman's Madhab is the Madhab of the person he asks. (He doesn’t have a Madhab
himself.)”
Abd Al-Mu’min goes on to say “And some of those who belong to the group of Al-Qadariyah (those that deny Qadr), obligate the layman to look into the proofs even for the issues in the branches of knowledge.”
Abu Al-Khattab says that this is the statement of the Mu’taziltes of Baghdad, and it is also the statement of the Dhaahiriyah[7]"
They say it’s not permissible for a layman to do Taqleed of a scholar, rather that which is upon this layman is to look into the proofs and extract the rulings himself.
"And Abd Al-Mu’min continues: And this is invalid according to Ijma’a (scholarly consensus)"
Abd Al-Mu’min goes on to say “And some of those who belong to the group of Al-Qadariyah (those that deny Qadr), obligate the layman to look into the proofs even for the issues in the branches of knowledge.”
Abu Al-Khattab says that this is the statement of the Mu’taziltes of Baghdad, and it is also the statement of the Dhaahiriyah[7]"
They say it’s not permissible for a layman to do Taqleed of a scholar, rather that which is upon this layman is to look into the proofs and extract the rulings himself.
"And Abd Al-Mu’min continues: And this is invalid according to Ijma’a (scholarly consensus)"
Meaning
that the scholarly consensus agrees that Taqleed of a Layman to a scholar is
permissible (in the branches), and this agreement that it is permissible existed prior to the
statement that it isn’t permissible, and this is because of the verse in
An-Nahl, as well as the actions of the Companions of the Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon him), and those who
followed them (May Allah be Pleased with them All), if they didn’t know the
answer to something they would ask those who had more knowledge than they did,
and the questioner often times didn’t know the methodology of extracting the
ruling from the proof nor the proof itself, and thus there was Ijma’a that a layman
would follow a Mujtahid (Those capable of extracting the rulings from the proofs.) Also, it’s important to make mention that true
Ijtihaad (Deductive ruling) doesn’t exist except in a few individuals, and if it were required by
everyone, it wouldn’t be possible for them to achieve it.
Then Abd Al-Mu’min continues “And Abu Al-Khattaab said, “Rather that which is obligatory upon the layman is knowing the proofs for Islaam.”
Meaning that he should know the proofs for the pillars of Islam, and this includes the main aspects of worship, and that which is similar to those things that they need on a daily basis that have been passed down and known in large numbers (Mutawaatir), and this is because the layman is similar to the scholar in regards to these matters in that he has to know these things, and thus there is no room for Taqleed.
Abd Al-Mu’min continues “Then the Layman should not ask someone except that he is almost certain that the person he is asking has knowledge. And this can be known because of how well known he is for his knowledge and his religiousness, or by a just upright Muslim informing him that such and such person has knowledge. He shouldn’t ask someone known to be ignorant, and if it’s not clear as to whether or not this person is a scholar or not, then he shouldn’t ask him.”
Then Abd Al-Mu’min continues “And Abu Al-Khattaab said, “Rather that which is obligatory upon the layman is knowing the proofs for Islaam.”
Meaning that he should know the proofs for the pillars of Islam, and this includes the main aspects of worship, and that which is similar to those things that they need on a daily basis that have been passed down and known in large numbers (Mutawaatir), and this is because the layman is similar to the scholar in regards to these matters in that he has to know these things, and thus there is no room for Taqleed.
Abd Al-Mu’min continues “Then the Layman should not ask someone except that he is almost certain that the person he is asking has knowledge. And this can be known because of how well known he is for his knowledge and his religiousness, or by a just upright Muslim informing him that such and such person has knowledge. He shouldn’t ask someone known to be ignorant, and if it’s not clear as to whether or not this person is a scholar or not, then he shouldn’t ask him.”
Sheikh
Saalih Al- Sheikh Says in summary [8]
“As for Itiba’a it is the following of the traces of something, which can be Islamic proofs (if the word is used in the Islamic sense) or any trace if it being used in the language. And that which is opposite to this is Taqleed, Taqleed is accepting the statement of someone and following it without knowing the proof, for if the person knew the proof and followed it would be considered Itibaa’a even if it was a secondary understanding of the proof away from it's apparent meaning (Mu'awal) or an incorrect proof (used out of context). As for Taqleed in Creed there has to be some explanation, for that which is required for the correctness of ones Islaam or Imaan, then taqleed is not sufficient in this regard. Rather one has to know the proof, because this is the knowledge that Allah meant in regards to His statement “So Know that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah so therefore seek forgiveness in Him from your sins.” Muhammad:19. As for doing taqleed to a scholar in extracting the rulings from the Daleel, then there is no problem with this, and what I mean by this is that a person follows this scholar in this scholars surety of the ruling regarding what that daleel proves. This is because a Mujtahid in understanding the daleel, are little in number in the Islamic nation. To reiterate that which is obligatory in Itiba’a and that which isn’t permissible to do taqleed is in regards to Creed and that which is required for ones Islaam such as, knowledge of the testimony of faith, and the pillars of Imaan."
“As for Itiba’a it is the following of the traces of something, which can be Islamic proofs (if the word is used in the Islamic sense) or any trace if it being used in the language. And that which is opposite to this is Taqleed, Taqleed is accepting the statement of someone and following it without knowing the proof, for if the person knew the proof and followed it would be considered Itibaa’a even if it was a secondary understanding of the proof away from it's apparent meaning (Mu'awal) or an incorrect proof (used out of context). As for Taqleed in Creed there has to be some explanation, for that which is required for the correctness of ones Islaam or Imaan, then taqleed is not sufficient in this regard. Rather one has to know the proof, because this is the knowledge that Allah meant in regards to His statement “So Know that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah so therefore seek forgiveness in Him from your sins.” Muhammad:19. As for doing taqleed to a scholar in extracting the rulings from the Daleel, then there is no problem with this, and what I mean by this is that a person follows this scholar in this scholars surety of the ruling regarding what that daleel proves. This is because a Mujtahid in understanding the daleel, are little in number in the Islamic nation. To reiterate that which is obligatory in Itiba’a and that which isn’t permissible to do taqleed is in regards to Creed and that which is required for ones Islaam such as, knowledge of the testimony of faith, and the pillars of Imaan."
Sheikh Saalih Al-Sheikh in his explanation of Usool At-Thalatha [9] said:
“The scholars extracted from the Hadeeth (At-Tirmidhi 1071) in regards to the one questioned in his grave “I heard people say something so I said it.” That Taqleed is not correct in relation to answering these three question (who is your lord, What is your Religion, Who is your Prophet.)….. and we have clarified before that the believer is not a Muqalid (in these issues), rather he would be of those who have extracted the evidences from the proofs from that which he has learned, and he would have truly believed that which is correct concerning these issues, so if he were to learn the proof once in his life, and then he believes that which the proof points to, and he has become upright upon following that until he dies, then he is a believer, meaning he has died upon belief, and it is not a must that he continuously recollects the proof or constantly extracts the meaning from these proofs, rather that which is obligatory is that the slave of Allah knows the truth in regards to the answers of these three issues, and that he knew the proof and extracted from it it’s correct understanding even if it were only once in his life, and it is because of this that the children amongst us learn this text, and learn the answers to these three questions, so that when they grow up they have already knew the proof and understood the reasoning behind these proofs.”
[1] Dar az-Zaahim page 406
[2] Meaning
to accept the statement of someone whose statement itself is not proof (Not
Allah nor his Messenger.) It’s possible to explain Taqleed that it’s the
accepting of the methodology (Madhab) of a Mujtahid in an Islamic ruling
without his statement being a proof in itself. (Sharh Mukhtasar Rawdha-
At-Toofi, Sa’d Ash-Shhithri, Dar At-Tadrumiyah, Vol. 2, page 982, 1st
Print.
[3]
Taqleed: It’s acting upon the statement of a Mujtahid or a Mufti without
looking towards the proof of that statement, because a Muqalid is unable to
look into the proofs and doesn’t have the ability to extract the rulings from
those proofs, so his trust in that Mujtahid or Mufti suffices him in accepting
and acting upon their statements. (Usool Madhab al-Imam Ahmad, Abd Allah
At-Turki, Mu’asasah Ar-Risaalah, Pg 748, 4th Print.
[4]
Follwing (Itbaa’) the statement of a person whose statement isn’t proof.
Al-Usool min ‘Ilm al-Usool, Muhammad Al-Uthaymeen, Daar ibn Al-Jawzi, Page 87.
[5]
Daar az-Zaahim, first print page 250.
[6]
Daar Ibn Al-Jawzi 3rd Print page 476
[7]
Al-Ahkaam Ibn Hazm 2/862
[9]
Shuroohat Daar Al-Imam Al-Bukhaari Ad-Doha 2nd print page 102
