Taqleed

An Analysis
In this article I will try to explain what Taqleed is in the view of different scholars and is it important to follow a
particular Imam or different Imams… Please do read it and comment if there is any mistake……

The most of extraction in this article are taken from the book “Taqleed ki Sharai Hasiyat” by Justice Taqi Uthmani
Son of Famous Hanafi Scholar Mufti Mohammad Shafi Deobandi writer of famous Tafseer “Tafseer Ma’ariful
Qura’n”. This book is translated in English under the title “Legal Status of Following a Madhab” by Mohammed
Amin Kholwadia.
This book can be downloaded from the following link.
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/LegalStatusOfFollowingAMadhab.pdf

The second book from which material of this article has been taken is “The Evolution of Fiqh” written by Dr. Abu
Ameenah Bilal Philips. He is famous Muslim scholar who accepted Islam in 1972 and frequently appears on
different Islamic channels and also run an online university from Qatar.

This book can be downloaded from the following link.

http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/The%20Evolution%20of%20Fiqh.pdf

There is another extract in this book which is taken from “Uloom ul Hadith Ek Taruf” written by Mubashir Nazir
which is the Sharah of famous book “Tayasarul Mustalah ul Hadith” written by Dr. Mahmood Tahaan who is
professor of Hadith and served at many universities in Arab world. This book is taught in different universities of
Arab world including Jamia al-Islami Madina Munawrah, King Saud University Makkah etc. The commentator of
this book is from Pakistan and his complete details are available at http://www.mubashirnazir.org/.

This book can be download from the following link.

http://mubashirnazir.org/ER/Hadith/L0004-Hadith-Download.pdf

The fourth book from which extracts have been taken is “Taqleed ki Haqeeqat” written by Mohammad Al Hassan
Al Jumairi Professor at Jamia Dirasat ul Islami Karachi Pakistan.

If anybody need this book kindly mail me at mir.ilyas@bismillah.com

Justice Taqi Uthmani says in his book
There are two types of Taqleed.
In the first category, the follower does not appoint any one Imam or Mujtahid, but instead follows the
opinion of one Imam in one issue and the opinion of another in a different issue. In the second type of
Taqleed, the follower chooses the opinion of one particular Imam and Mujtahid and does not resort to
anyone else besides him in any issue. The former is known as Taqleed in general and the latter is known
as Taqleed of an individual. The essence of both types of Taqleed is nothing more than the fact that
someone who does not have the academic capability to extract rules from the Qura'n and Sunnah
chooses someone whom he regards as an expert in the interpretation of the Qura'n and Sunnah, relies
upon his understanding and adheres to his opinion. The validity - if not the mandate - for this approach
appears in numerous proofs from the Qura'n and Sunnah.

He further quotes

Ibn Humam and Ibn Nujaim, both define Taqleed thus:

"Taqleed is to follow the opinion of a person - whose opinion is not a proof in Islamic law without asking
for his [the person followed] proof."

This statement has clarified the fact that a person who practices Taqleed (the Muqallid) does not hold the
opinion of the one whom he follows (the Mujtahid) as a source of Islamic law because the sources for
Islamic law are confined to the Qura'n and Sunnah (both Ijma and Qiyas [analogy] are derived from the
Qura'n and Sunnah). The only reason why a Muqallid follows an Imam is because of the conviction that
the Mujtahid has insights into the Qura'n and Sunnah (which he, the follower, does not possess) by
which the Mujtahid is able to understand their meanings, in this regard the follower has relied upon the
Imams' opinion. Perceived in this perspective Taqleed cannot in all fairness, perceived be equaled with
shirk nor blind following. Believing that the Imam (Mujtahid) is a lawgiver and maker and to regard
obedience to him as binding, this is most definitely an act of Shirk. To believe one as an interpreter of the
law and trust his opinion rather than one's own is necessary, if one has not reached the level of a Mujtahid
and indispensable in this age of scholastic bankruptcy.

Now we will quote some definitions of Taqleed taken from book Taqleed ki Haqeeqat.
And he then quotes the qawl of Imam Shafi which is written in Fiqh ul Akbar.

And then he further narrates in the Tafseer of the ayah in which it is mentioned to ask ahle zikr.

He states that when a hanafi scholar gives a fatwa he doesn’t give it according to Qura’n and Hadith though Allah
has commanded ahle ilm to give fatwa according to Qura’n and Hadith not according to their own opinion. He
further states that Hanafis give fatwa according to shami, and fatawa deobandi despite they were asked by the
questioner to give answer according to Qura’n and hadith. He further states that how can those people give fatwa
according to the Qura’n for those who consider other books as Qura’n other than Qura’n. He then quotes Hidayah.

He then quotes Shah Waliullah Muhadith Dehlvi. I will just give its Urdu translation.
After He quotes examples from Hanafi books regarding sayings of Abu Hanifa .

Further ahead he writes about the verse

And then for the sake argument he accepts this verse permits Taqleed but then he quotes another ayah

And asks the Muqallid particularly hanafis that did Allah commanded Mohammad peace be upon him to do
Taqleed of Jews and Christian MadhAllah‫۔‬
He then further quotes the statements of Hanafi Scholars who spoke against Taqleed. He quotes Abdul Hai
Lakhnavi.

Moving further ahead he quotes a hanafi scholar Allama Karkhi

It is not possible here to quote complete book

In the end he I will paste picture and then you decide yourself what is the difference between two Madhabs.
Now we will see what Taqi Uthmani says.

He states under the Heading Taqleed in the Qura’n in which he concludes in this way

"As for the question; who is allowed to follow (and make Taqleed)? It is the lay person who does not have
the tools to understand the laws of Islam. The lay person is allowed to follow a scholar and act upon his
advice. Allah says:

"So, if you do not know, ask those of remembrance."

After quoting this verse Khatib has narrated with his chain of narrators from Amr bin Qais that in this
verse, ".... Those of remembrance" are those of knowledge.

And then he begin another title under Taqleed in the Sunnah

Taqi Uthmani states

The Sunnah, correspondingly to the verses in the Qura’n, are replete with references to Taqleed, a few are
mentioned below.

Hudaifah said that the Prophet Sallalahu Alaihi Wassallam said "I do not know how long I will remain
with you. So follow these two people (Who will remain) after me : Abu Bakr and Omar." (Tirmidhi, Ibn
Majah and Ahmed)

Taqi Uthmani further states under the heading

THE ERA OF THE COMPANIONS AND ABSOLUTE TAQLEED

Taqleed was prevalent during the era of the Companions. Companions who were not immersed with
scholarship, or did not use their own judgment (Ijtihad) in certain issues would resort to the Companions
who were acknowledged as jurists and act according to their advice. Evidence of absolute Taqleed and
Taqleed of an individual during the successors era are copious, many volumes devoted entirely to this
subject would not do it justice. However, for want of brevity here are a few examples of absolute Taqleed
during the age of the successors.

Ibn Abbas narrates that Omar ibn Khattab gave a sermon at Jabiyah and said:
"0 people! If you want to know anything about the Qur'an, go to Obai ibn Ka'b. If you want to know about
inheritance, go to Zaid ibn Thabit. If you want to know about Fiqh (what is halal and what is haram), go to
Mu 'adh ibn Jabal. If you want to know about wealth, then come to me for Allah has made me a guardian
and a distributor”. (Tabarani in Al-Awsat)

Taqi Uthmani further mentions

TAQLEED OF AN INDIVIDUAL DURING THE TIME OF THE

COMPANIONS AND THEIR FOLLOWERS

Companions did not make Taqleed rigidly adhering to one scholar in all issues but rather the Companions
approached different scholars and adhered to the disparate Fatwas, which were received from the
different scholars amongst the Companions. This is normally referred to as Taqleed in general. There are
abundant references to Taqleed of a particular individual in the books of Sunnah. A few examples are
offered below.
Imam Bukhari narrates from Ikrimah that the people of Madinah asked Ibn Abbas about a woman who -
during Hajj - makes her first Tawaaf and then enters her menstrual period before she can make her final
Tawaaf. Ibn Abbas told them that she could go home without completing her final Tawaaf. The people of
Madinah said:

"We will not take your opinion over the opinion of Zaid ibn Thabit."
This narration is found in the Mu'ajjam of Isma'ili from Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi.

Taqi Uthmani further quotes what Shah Waliullah Dehlvi said….

"The criticism against Taqleed does not apply to the person who acknowledges that he should follow only
the Prophet's Sallalahu Alaihi Wassallam statements, that is to say what Prophet Sallalahu Alaihi
Wassallam made halal and what he made haram. Since this person does not possess the knowledge
enumerated by the Prophet Sallalahu Alaihi Wassallam and is not capable of reconciling apparent
contradictions, nor does he have a structured method of extracting rules from those statements, he should
follow a righteous scholar assuming that he is right in his opinion, provided that the scholar follows the
Qura’n and Sunnah and give Fatwas based on them. However, if this assumption of the follower is found
to be wrong, he must withdraw from following that scholar immediately without any questions of debates.
How can anyone doubt this line of thinking since the practice of asking for Fatwas and giving Fatwas has
been in vogue from the time of the Prophet Sallalahu Alaihi Wassallam. There is no difference if he asks
the scholar whom he follows all the time or whether he asks him sometime [as in following a particular
scholar] and others on other occasions [or practicing Taqleed in general] as long as the scholar meets the
criteria which we have mentioned."

After moving further ahead he then begins to advocate Taqleed Sakhsi. See his book Here.
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/LegalStatusOfFollowingAMadhab.pdf

Justice Taqi Uthmani has proved by various sayings of different scholars that Taqleed Mutlaq was
banned by the scholars of 4th century. And it was made obligatory that every Muslim should do Taqleed of
four imams only.

He states:

The passage of Shah Waliyyullah, quoted above, apparently condones that Taqleed is permissible.
However, certain historical changes occurred and there was a need for systemization. May Allah have
mercy on the scholars who saw that there was a need to demarcate the practice of Taqleed. For reasons of
administration and to avoid the possibility of contradictions amongst the scholars of differing Ijtihad over
a primary source, the laity were encouraged to follow only one Imam and Mujtahid instead of referring to
several. This idea gained hegemony during the third and fourth century AH. Hence, this has been the
dictum of the vast majority of the Ummah for subsequent centuries, and scholars themselves have
conformed to Taqleed of a particular Imam. In order to understand the reasons and benefits of the
systemization of Fiqh, the following premise has to be comprehended: following one's desires and
passions is a very grave form of misguidance. Following desires and passions in itself is a grave sin,
however there still remains the prospect that such people may repent. Following desires and passions to
the extent that they believe what is halal to be haram and what is haram to be halal is disastrous.
Disobedience of this nature is fatal and makes religion and law a mere sham. These people are submerged
in a sin, which is far more serious and fatal than that of the first group. The door to such evil obviously has
to be avoided, as does the path, which facilitates it. This is an established principle in Usool ul Fiqh
(principles of jurisprudence). The jurists were concerned at the decay of piety and devoutness amongst
the Muslim populous, devoutness being the norm during the time of the Companions. They feared that
subsequent generations scruples would not be as elevated as the generation of the first three generations
(Salaf). If under these circumstances, the door of following an Imam in general were unconditional
inadvertently desires would become the commanding principle. For example bleeding expatiates wudhu
according to Imam Abu Hanifa, but not according to Imam Shaafi’ee. For the sake of convenience and
ease a person, who usually follows Imam Abu Hanifa. May choose to follow Imam Shaafi’ees opinion and
offer Salaat in this condition, which according to the Hanafis is not valid because he is without wudhu.
However touching a woman would invalidate his wudhu according to Shaafi’ee and does not according to
Imam Abu Hanifa. According to both schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi and Shaafi’ee) such a wudhu is
expatiated and no school would accept Salaat of such a person as valid. A person left freely to adopt the
view which suited him best and abandon the Fatwa which did not meet his "standards" of comfort begs
the question upon what basis is the "non-scholar" to choose between two contrary Fatwas if not one’s
own nafs (desires). It is clear that this line of action would result in people using Islamic law as a triviality
to entertain the lower self. No Muslim scholar of any repute has validated this kind of practice. Imam Ibn
Taymiyyah discussed the deception of this approach and wrote:
"Imam Ahmed - among others - has categorically stated that it is not befitting for anyone to deem
something haram at one time and then deem the same thing halal at another - merely on whim and fancy.
For example, it is not proper for someone to believe that the neighbor has the right of preemption (when
someone is buying his neighbor’s house) and then, when he wishes to sell his house to a non-neighbor
declines to give his neighbor the right of preemption. Likewise, it is not proper for one to believe that a
brother should inherit when the grand-father of the deceased is alive and when he becomes a grand-father
he denies the brother of the deceased his share of the inheritance. So this kind of person who deems that
something is permissible or forbidden, necessary or unnecessary merely because of whims and fancies is
condemned and outside the boundaries of a just [reliable] person. Imam Ahmed and others have
categorically stated that this practice is not permissible." 67

Ibn Taymiyyah continues:

"They follow - at one point in time - those scholars who see the marriage as void and at another point of
time; they follow those scholars who say that the marriage is still intact merely because of vested interest
and desires. This kind of practice is not allowed according to the unanimous opinion of the Imams. An
example of this is that the man considers the right of preemption to be valid for a neighbor when he is
buying and not valid when he is selling. This is not allowed by Ijma' (the consensus of the Ummah).
Likewise, it is not allowed to believe that the patronage of a sinner is valid when he gets married and
considers the same patronage to be invalid when he decides to divorce. And even if the one seeking the
Fatwa claims that he did not know about the differences of opinion, he would not be given any discretion
since that would open the doors of playing with religion and would open many avenues of permitting and
forbidding based on fancies and desires."
Subservience to desires and assuming something to be permissible or forbidden based on personal fancy
is such a colossal crime that no scholar has allowed it. The Qura’n and Sunnah are replete with proofs for
this argument. However, we have sufficed with

Ibn Taymiyyah quotes since he is highly regarded even by those who do not believe that following a
particular Imam is valid. Ibn Taymiyyah himself believed that following a particular Imam was not
permissible, but despite that, he did not subscribe to the idea that a person can follow an Imam based on
his fancies and desires. In fact, he said that it was not allowed by the consensus of the Ummah.
During the times of the Companions and their followers, the fear of Allah and the Hereafter was so
prevalent that absolute Taqleed (Taqleed in general) did not pose a threat to the kind of behavior
elucidated above. For this reason people followed different scholars at different times and this was
deemed to be praise worthy and totally acceptable. However with each succeeding generation the level of
piety dwindled and the likelihood of succumbing to ones desires greatly increased. Scholars and jurists
concerned at the degenerating circumstances issued a general Fatwa based on public interest, asserting
that Taqleed is restricted to a particular Mujtahid Imam only. Absolute or general Taqleed should be
abandoned. This was by no means an irrevocable Islamic statute but rather it was a legal opinion dictated
by the demands of the time and the needs of the Muslim community. Imam Nawwawi, the commentator
of Muslim explains the necessity of following a particular scholar in the following words:
"The reasoning for this is that if following any school of thought was allowed, it would lead to people
hand-picking the conveniences of the schools in order to follow their desires. They would choose between
halal and haram and between necessary and permissible. This would lead to relinquishing the collar
(burden) of responsibility, this was unlike in the early days of Islam where the schools of thought were
not readily available, nor were they structured or known. So based on this reasoning, a person should
strive to choose one school of thought which he follows precisely."

Mubashir Nazir in his book “Uloom ul Hadith Ek Taruf” answers a question

The topic here is same that is discussed by Taqi Uthmani i.e. when Taqleed Shaksi was made compulsory
over Taqleed Mutlaq
On this point Dr. Bilal Philips quotes in his book “the evolution of Fiqh”.

This stage covers approximately six centuries starting with the sacking of Baghdad in 1258 CE and the execution of
the last ‘Abbaasid caliph, al-Musta’sim, and ending around the middle of the nineteenth century of the Christian
era. This period also represents the rise of the Ottoman Empire, founded in 1299 CE by the Turkish leader
‘Uthmaan I, until its decline under the attacks of European colonialism. The prevailing characteristic of this period
was that of Taqleed (the blind following of a Madh-hab) and factionalism. This degenerative trend resulted in the
dropping of all forms of Ijtihad and the evolution of the Madh-habs into totally separate entities closely resembling
sects. The compilation of Fiqh during this period was limited to commenting on previous works and was directed
toward the promotion of individual Madh-habs. Thus, the dynamism of Fiqh was lost and many of the laws became
increasingly outmoded and inapplicable in their existing forms. In order to fill this legislative gap, European law
codes were gradually introduced in place of some of the Islamic laws, which had fallen into disuse. Eventually with
the advance of European colonialism and the breaking up of the Muslim Empire, European laws supplanted Islamic
law. Certain reformers sought to stem the tide of stagnation and decline, calling for a return to the original purity of
Islam and its laws. However, factionalism has continued to the present day, in spite of an increase in institutional
teaching of comparative Fiqh.

Emergence of Taqleed
The scholars of this period left all forms of Ijtihad and unanimously issued a legal ruling, which was intended to
close the door of Ijtihad permanently. They reasoned that all possible issues had already been raised and
addressed, and there was therefore no need for further Ijtihaad.184 With that step, a new concept of Madh-hab
arose, namely that one of the four Madh-habs had to be followed for one’s Islam to be valid. In time this concept
became firmly embedded among the masses as well as the scholars of Fiqh. Thus, the religion of Islam itself became
restricted within the confines of the four existing Madh-habs; Hanafee, Maalikee, Shaafi’ee and Hamblee. These
schools of law came to be considered divinely ordained manifestations of Islam. All of them were supposed to be
completely correct, equal and representative of true Islam, yet there were innumerable differences among them. In
fact there were scholars in this period who interpreted some Hadiths in such a way as to prove that the Prophet
(Sallalahu Alaihi Wassallam) him-self had predicted the appearance of the Imaams and their Madh-habs.
Consequently, any attempt to go beyond these canonical Madh-habs was considered heretical and anyone who
refused to follow one of these Madh-hab was classified an apostle. The hyper conservative scholars of this stage
even went so far as to rule that whoever was caught transferring from one Madh-hab to another was liable to
punishment at the discretion of the local judge. A ruling was also made in the Hanafee Madh-hab prohibiting the
marriage of a Hanafee to a Shaafi’ee. And even the second most important pillar of Islam, Salaah, was not spared
the effects of Madh-hab fanaticism. The followers of the various Madh-habs began to refuse to pray behind the
Imaams from other Madh-habs. This resulted in the building of separate prayer niches in the masjid186 communities
where more than one Madh-hab existed. Masjids of this type can still be seen in places like Syria, where Sunni
Muslims follow either the Hanafee or Shaafi’ee Madh-hab. Even the most holy masjid, al-Masjid al- Haraam of
Makkah, which represents the unity of Muslims and the religion of Islam, was affected. Separate prayer niches
were set up
around the Ka’bah: one for an Imam from each of the schools. And when the time for Salaah came, an Imam from
one of the Madh-habs would lead a congregation of followers from his Madh-hab in prayer; then another Imam
from one of the other Madh-habs would lead his congregation of followers and so on. It is interesting to note that
separate places of prayer for each of the Madh-habs remained around the Ka’bah until the first quarter of the
twentieth century when ‘Abdul-‘Azeez ibn Sa’oud and his army conquered Makkah (October of 1924) and united
all worshippers behind a single Imam regardless of his or their Madh-habs.

He then comments about the reformers who said against Taqleed

In spite of the general decay described above, there existed from time to time throughout this period a few
outstanding scholars who opposed Taqleed and dared to raise the banner of Ijtihad. They called for a return to the
roots of the religion, to the true sources of Islamic law and to reliance on these foundations above all else. Some of
these reformers and their contributions are described hereafter.

Ahmad ibn Taymeeyah (1263-1328 CE) was not foremost among the reformers of this period. Because of his
challenge of the status quo, many of his contemporaries declared him an apostate and had the authorities jail him
repeatedly. Ibn Taymeeyah was, however, one of the greatest scholars of his time. Initially, he had studied Fiqh
according to the Hambalee Madh-hab, but did not restrict himself to it. He studied the sources of Islamic law in
depth and mastered all the Islamic sciences which were known at that time. Furthermore, he examined the writings
of various sects which had broken off from Islam, studied the religious books of the Christians, the Jews and their
various sects and wrote extensive critiques on all of them. Ibn Taymeeyah also took part in the Jihaad against the
Mongols who had occupied the eastern and northern provinces of the former ‘Abbaasid state and were at that were
among the greatest Islamic scholars of their time and carried on to the next generation the banner of Ijtihad and a
return to the pure sources of Islam which he had raised. Among them was Ibn Qayyim, a great scholar in the fields
of Fiqh and Hadith criticism and Ibn Katheer, a master in Tafseer, History and Hadith.
 Muhammad ibn ‘Alee ash-Shawkaanee (1757-1835 CE) born near the town of Shawkaan in Yemen, was also
among the reformers to this Period. Ash-Shawkaanee studied Fiqh according to the Zaydee Madh-hab and became
one of its outstanding scholars. He then went into an in-depth study of the Hadith of his time. At this point he freed
himself of the Madh-hab and began making independent Ijtihad. He wrote a number of works in Fiqh and its
fundamentals in which issues studied from the points of view of all the Madh-habs were concluded with solutions
based solely on the most accurate proofs and the most convincing arguments. Imam ash-Shawkaanee took the
position that Taqleed was Haraam and wrote a number of books on the topic, for example, Al-Qawl al- Mufeed fee
Hukm at-Taqleed. Consequently, he also came under attack from most of the scholars of his time.
Another noteworthy reformer was the great scholar Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Raheem better known as Shah Walee
Allaah Dihlawee (1703-1762 CE). He was born in the Indian sub-continent where Taqleed was, perhaps, most
rampant. After he had mastered the various Islamic sciences, he called for the re-opening of the door of Ijtihad and
the re-unification of the schools of Fiqh. In this efforts to re-examine Islamic principles and to find out on what
authority the legal schools based their regulations, Shah Walee Allaah rejuvenated the study of Hadith. Although
he did not go so far as to reject the existing Fiqh schools, nevertheless he taught that everyone was free to choose a
particular decision different from that taken by the school to which he belonged himself, if he was convinced that
the case was better confirmed by Hadith. However the overall state of degeneration and stagnation has continued
until today, despite the efforts of modern thinkers like Jamaal ad-Deen al-Afghani (1839-1897 CE) who traveled
throughout the Muslim world calling for reform. Jamaal ad-Deen traveled to India, Makkah, and Constantinople,
settling finally in Egypt. He called for free political, religious and scientific thought and denounced Taqleed and state
corruption. Jamaal ad-Deen thought these ideas at the University of Jamaal ad-Deen’s ideas were extremist. For
example, he elevated the human mind and its logical deductions to a level equal to that of Divine Revelation. His
intentions also became suspect due to his involvement with the Masonic movement which was at that time
establishing new branches in the Middle-East.195

Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849-1905 CE) was among Afghani’s most famous students. Under the influence of Afghani
and Ibn Muhammad ‘Abduh, Taqleed and its supporters were systematically attacked. But, due to Muhammad
‘Abduh’s leaning toward extreme modernism; he eventually deviated in some of his interpretations and legal
rulings. For example, in his Tafseer of the Qur’an he Prophets of directly performed by God through the forces of
nature. To him the flocks of birds which dropped clay pebbles on the army of Abrahah and his elephant during their
attack on the Ka’bah were simply airborne microbes which spread disease among them. Likewise, he made a
Fatwaa allowing Muslims to be involved in business transactions involving interest. He based this ruling on the
Fiqh principle that dire necessity makes the forbidden allowable. The fallacy of his ruling lay in the fact that Fiqh
specifically defines dire necessity as involving matters of life and death or loss of limb, and this was simply not the
case where business transactions are concerned. Muhammad ‘Abduh’s main student, Muhammad Rashed Ridaa
(d. 1935), carried on his mentor’s attack on Taqleed, but rejected most of his teacher’s excesses. However, other
students of Muhammad ‘Abduh became the nucleus of the extreme modernist movement and deviated in many
areas even more than their teacher. For example, his student Qaasim Ameen (died 1908) was the first to make a
vehement attack on polygamy, the simplicity of Islamic divorce and the use of the veil.

Other scholars of the twentieth century, such as Hassan al- Bannaa (d.1949), founder of the Ikhwaan Muslimoon
movement Sayyid, Abul-A’laa Mawdudi (1903-1979), founder of the Jama’at Islami movement, and more recently
the great Hadith scholar of our era, Naasir ad-Deen al-Albaanee have picked up the banner of Islamic Revival and
have called for the unification of the Madh-habs. But, to this day, the majority of scholars remain firmly bound to
sectarian Islam in the form of one of the four Madh-habs. In doing so, they unknowingly perpetuate division among
the ranks of the Muslim nation. Nor does there appear to be much hope for an end to this process in the near future;
for, with very few exceptions, present day Islamic institutions of learning throughout the Muslim world actively
propagate a sectarian view of Islam.

It is true that comparative Fiqh is now being given a prominent place in the syllabuses of these institutions, and the
study of Hadeeth has become more popular than it was only a century ago. But, the reality is that these two
potentially dynamic and regenerative subjects have been defused by the sectarian system of Islamic education.
Each university adheres to the official Madh-hab of the country in which it is situated and thus all the core Fiqh
courses of the Islamic law Syllabus (called Sharee’ah or Usool al-Deen) are taught according to the state Madh-
hab. This is done to fulfill the local government’s need for judges who conform to the Madh-hab used in the civil
law system of the state. For example, the University of al-Azhar in Egypt, the most venerated institution in the
Muslim world, is the only university in which all of the major Madh-habs are taught. However, students entering
the university are required to indicate their Madh-hab is placed in the same class. From the beginning of their
studies until they graduate, all of their professors will be from their own Madh-hab. Accordingly, the positions of
the other Madh-habs are studied merely as oddities, and the great books of Hadith are read more for the blessing
than for the revelation of truth. Whenever a conflicting opinion is encountered in the course of these studies, the
teacher in the sectarian institution examines it superficially and rejects it in the light of the compelling arguments,
which he develops to support the position of his particular Madh-hab. Thus, although other positions may be
supported by very strong proofs, the sectarian teacher’s treatment denies them the consideration they deserve.
Similarly, if a strong Hadith which appears contrary to the position taken by the Madh-hab is met while reading the
books of Hadiths, the teacher either re-interprets it to support his Madh-hab or he deftly explains it away. And if
neither of the two is possible, a series of weak Hadiths are quoted in support of the Madh-hab’s position without
the slightest mention that they are weak. In that way, it appears that there is a greater number of Hadiths
supporting the Madh-habs position, and the students are convinced of the correctness of their Madh-hab.

Then He suggests Dynamic Fiqh. See below

Dynamic Fiqh
The Situation today is a mixture of the preceding stages. Mass communication has brought Muslim scholars into
close contact once again, but religious leadership at the state level disappeared long ago when the Muslim world
became divided into nationalist entities each with its own politico-economic governmental system. The vastly
increased Muslim population of today (variously estimated between 800 million and a billion) has been held
together by their belief in Allah and His Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wassallam) and by their commitment to the
Qur’an and the Sunnah. Religious leadership such as there is tends to be exercised in separate stated through one
of the four Madh-habs, which though less fanatic than formerly, unfortunately continue to be sectarian and hence
divisive However, there have been encouraging signs, especially since the middle of this century, that the drive
towards unity divinely built into Islam is propelling Muslims the world over towards a revival of their religion as
the decisive factor in their lives at the personal, communal and national levels. Given the multiplicity of cultures
represented in the Muslim population and the unceasing diversity of issues and problems arising from daily living
in this rapidly changing world, many Muslims scholars have long felt that the goal of reestablishing Islam at the
supreme guide in the daily lives of Muslims, anywhere in the world, is-achievable only by a revival of a dynamic
Fiqh such as was practiced in what we previously described as the “Stage of flowering”. This implies a
reunification of the Madh-habs with all traces of fanaticism and sectarianism removed, and the revival of Ijtihad to
make Fiqh once more a dynamic, objectively deduced body of laws so that individual Muslim scholars and jurists
may effectively and uniformly apply the Sharee’ah in all parts of the Muslim world, no matter what the socio-
political economic conditions. No less important is the possible impact of such a reformation, not only on new
converts to Islam, but also on the new generation of Muslims born into the faith. In the case of the former, they
would be spared the perplexing effects of conflicting rulings from Madh-hab to Madh-habs, while in the case of the
latter, they would be spared the frustration of the sectarianism generated by Madh-habs contradictions and avoid
the tendency towards total rejection of the Madh-habs and the outstanding contributions of early scholars.

Proposed Steps

Finally, a unified Madh-habs and a dynamic body of Fiqh envisioned above are felt to be needed in order to evolve
vibrant Islamic communities and unite such communities throughout the world in the types of co-operative
endeavors that would protect the common interest of mankind and project Islam on a global scale. Assuming the
desirability and validity of the twin goals of unifying the Madh-habs and re-establishing a dynamic Fiqh, what are
the steps that might be taken towards achieving these goals? In the first place, concerted efforts will have to be
made to resolve in a truly objective way the differences between the existing Madh-habs and their predecessors,
using the methodology of the early scholars as defined by their statements and practices quoted in the previous
chapters. The mechanics of initiating appropriate action calls for enlightened leadership springing from the ranks of
progressive and influential scholars of high caliber, that is, some person or persons imbued with the zeal to effect
changes along the lines proposed will have to take the initiative to communicate with other interested parties with a
view to planning and organizing the procedural details. Drawing on modern day systems approaches to problem
solving, these steps would include: objective definition of the real obstacles to solution; selection of the most
appropriate solution; determination of possible methods of implementation; selection of the most appropriate
method; then putting the solution into effect. At each stage in this type of planning, the steps chosen would have to
be continuously evaluated with regard to the problems and the goals. Obviously, the task of unifying the Madh-habs
and restoring dynamic Fiqh are not susceptible to simplistic solutions, but with Allah’s blessings they are within the
realm of possibility. On a theoretical level, it is comparatively easy to make suggestions for the resolutions of
interpretational and application differences among Madh-habs. The following framework, based on the
methodology of the early Imaams, has been recommended at various times by progressive-minded Islamic
scholars.

The conclusions I draw from the sayings of Scholars.

1. Justice Taqi Uthmani says that Taqleed is only important for that person who cannot draw the ahkam
from Qura’n and Sunnah exclusively but as he reaches to the end of the book Taqleed becomes Wajib even
for a Scholar.

2. There is a common point in these notes that fourth century scholars feared of fitnah so they decided that
everybody should Taqleed one of the four Imams but can this was not possible for the later scholars who
could lift this ban as doing Taqleed created more fitnah than not doing.

3. When Sahaba used to ask different Scholars of their time in any matter then who are we to confine it to one
scholar.

4. When Umar Radiallahu Anhu said in one of his sermon that you should go to that scholar who is
specialized in one field so why are we asking only one scholar in every issue.

5. We have scholars in present world specialized in every field why cannot we ask directly them instead of
doing blind Taqleed.

6. Justice Taqi Uthmani used statements of Ibn Taymiyyah and Shah Waliullah Muhadith Dehlvi in his
defense but the other two scholars used them against Taqleed.

Please inform me if there is any mistake in this document @ mir.ilyas@bismillah.com