Following Is Different from Imitation

One of the frequent fallacies regarding taqlid is conflating the concept of following (taba'iyyat) with the concept of imitation (taqlid). (For example, to defend taqlid, some point to verses that recommend following or obedience.) This is while following means obeying, but taqlid means blind following, and there is an important difference between the two — otherwise, God would have had no hesitation in using the word taqlid Himself.

To better understand the difference, note that someone who does not engage in blind following and follows God, the Prophet (pbuh), the Imams (peace be upon them), and religious scholars only with evidence and proof is still a follower — the word "following" can be used to describe their action, but the word "taqlid" cannot. Likewise, when a Muslim researches the faith fundamentals and beliefs and comes to understand the oneness of God, His justice, the truth of the Qur'an, the finality of the Prophet's mission (pbuh), the Imamate of the Imams (peace be upon them), etc., they are still following them. So if someone also researches and follows with open eyes and ears in matters of practice, they are still followers — no one can say "you have not followed"! Yet some, like Mr. Qara'ati in a speech, say that in taqlid one must say "yes sir" to whatever the marja' commands in order to have followed.

A Qur'anic example

A Qur'anic example showing that following and obedience are one thing and taqlid another is the story of God's revelation to Prophet Moses (pbuh). God Himself speaks to him and commands him to go to Pharaoh, and even gives him miracles. Yet Moses does not unquestioningly say "yes sir" — rather, he says: "I killed one of them, so I fear they will kill me. My brother Aaron is more eloquent than I; send him with me as a helper..." We see that if the aforementioned framework were correct, upon hearing God's voice, Moses should not have thought of anything else! God commanded "Go," and surely He had thought of everything Himself. Moses should have, like the story of Harun al-Makki who at the Imam's command immediately and unquestioningly entered a fiery furnace, headed straight to Pharaoh — but he did not. He thought about things and made requests that God already knew about and could have granted. And Moses had even seen miracles — moreover, he himself had been granted miracles!

Can anyone say that in any stage of this story, which appears in Surah al-Qasas (28:30 onwards) and Surah Ta Ha (20:9 onwards), Moses did not follow and obey God?! No — Moses obeyed completely, but with responsible thought and reflection. Even God Himself did not consider Moses' thinking to be wrong nor did He rebuke him; rather, He graciously confirmed him and answered him. At the same time, can anyone say that Moses engaged in unquestioning, blind, closed-eyed obedience — in a word, taqlid?! Again, no — we see that he had everything needed for trust and certainty in the truth, correctness, and completeness of God's command, yet he still did not suspend his own thinking. This shows that following and obedience are different from taqlid.

It is truly surprising how they expect us to see, instead of miracles, the flaws and errors of scholars — both in practice and in fatwa — and still suspend our thinking and say "yes sir"!

Following a military commander or a ruler is outside the scope of this discussion

One of the fallacies in discussions of ijtihad and taqlid is equating following in religious matters with a soldier following a commander or a citizen following the laws of society, claiming that rejecting taqlid means chaos in society and the military! It must be stated clearly at the outset that the subject of this collection is following in religious rulings — i.e., the very things that are the subject of the maraji''s rasa'il (manuals of practical rulings). It is obvious that when a ruler passes a law according to law and on behalf of the people, or when a military commander issues an order within the framework of his responsibility that falls within the scope of his subordinates' duties, compliance with that law and execution of that order does not require attaining knowledge of the wisdom behind the order. Indeed, attempting to attain knowledge and exchange evidence may be impossible, or spending time and energy to understand the wisdom behind the order may cause harm.

Although even in those cases, the better the executor understands the wisdom behind the order, the better, more accurately, and more effectively they can execute it and encourage others to do so, in any case, the above instances fall outside the scope of this collection and the definition of taqlid.

Absolute obedience is also different from taqlid

Another mistake sometimes made in defining taqlid is equating it with "absolute obedience and following." That is, since absolute obedience involves no questioning, it must be the same as taqlid. But with a little attention, it becomes clear that this equation is incorrect. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, taqlid means "following without attaining knowledge" — when someone performs an action without having knowledge of its rationale, merely because another has said so. On this basis, what determines whether an action is imitative is whether the obligated person has knowledge of the wisdom behind that action, not whether they ask questions. That is, a person may receive a command and already have prior knowledge of its wisdom — therefore they do not question it and carry it out — but one cannot say they have imitated, because their action was based on knowledge (Harun al-Makki's action may have been of this kind). Also, a person may receive a command, have no knowledge of its wisdom, but find the time and place unsuitable for asking for evidence, and since the command does not contradict previous commands, they act upon it in the intention that by doing so they will come to understand its wisdom. In this case too, the person's action is unquestioning but not imitative — rather, it is investigative.

Even when a person questions a command, it does not necessarily mean they intend to disobey or have deviated from absolute obedience (the intention to disobey is a matter of the heart, and no one but God is aware of it). On the contrary, the very act of "questioning" may itself be the Master's command, and someone who acts without questioning may be violating the Master's command and deviating from absolute obedience. This is similar to a student who constantly questions their professor's work — but these questions arise not from defiance but from the professor's own instruction. And coincidentally, this collection of writings shows that the realm of religion and religious obedience is of this kind. God Himself has prohibited His servants from falling upon His commands with closed eyes and ears, and the Infallibles (peace be upon them) have repeatedly and in very explicit terms asked Muslims to abandon taqlid and pursue knowledge, acting based on knowledge, tafaqquh (deep understanding) in religion, and asking questions. In the following chapter, we will review these commands.

Parent page: Definition of Taqlid

Return to Table of Contents