Foreword

About a year ago, I happened to see a clip from an interview in which Mr. Soleimani Ardestani said: “Writing a resalah amaliyah (manual of practical rulings) is a deviation!^[1]”. Throughout my life, I had experienced problems in practicing taqlid (imitation), but until that moment I still believed in it, and his statement was hard for me to take. I followed up the case with him on Telegram, and he answered a little bit and shared some of his previous lectures. Later, either from him or from members of his group, I heard that there is only one hadith that recommends taqlid, and that too is in a book attributed to Imam Hasan al-Askari (peace be upon him), whose chain of transmission is not reliable. Still, I could not believe it and tried to do my own research. Very quickly and easily, evidence appeared on the web; among them, that the head of the University of Qur’an and Hadith had also confirmed this claim—that two of the narrators of that book are unknown^[2]. I was completely astonished, and it was not easy for me to digest! How is it possible that such an important and sensitive issue has only one hadith, and that too unreliable?! How had no one ever told us anything about this before?!...

This marked the beginning of occasional studies and searches. The further I went, the more shocks I experienced to my previous beliefs. Among them was that not only does taqlid have no foundation in the Qur’an, hadith, or reason^[3], but there are also explicit and strong commands against it, as well as firm and numerous commands for the method opposite to taqlid—namely, “deep understanding (tafaqquh) to the extent of one’s ability”—and all of these have, in a strange way, been neglected by us. For example, in the introduction to the book Usul al-Kafi, one of the four main books of Shi‘ism compiled in a period close to the time of the Imam Zaman (may Allah hasten his reappearance), I read a statement from Shaykh al-Kulayni to the effect that: “We seek refuge in God from taqlid^[4]”. And in the “Chapter of Taqlid” in that same book, not only was there no trace in favor of the well-known fatwa “Every Muslim must either be a mujtahid, act with precaution, or do taqlid” or other similar rulings, but only three opposing narrations were mentioned—two of which refer to verse 31 of Surah al-Tawbah, which considers the unquestioning following of Jews and Christians from their scholars and clergy as polytheism (associating partners with God). A similar situation could be seen in other reliable early Islamic sources as well.

In contemporary texts, the situation was also disappointing. For example, I read on the official website of Hawza (seminary) that resalah amaliyah in their current form did not exist until the time of Ayatollah Borujerdi—about a hundred years ago^[5]! Or, by chance, in the book Al-Fatawa al-Wadihah by Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, I came across the meaning of the word taqlid, where it was written: “It is called taqlid because the accountable person places his action like a qalādah (collar) around the neck of the mujtahid he follows, as a symbolic expression of transferring the responsibility of that action to him before Almighty God^[6]”. Since the text was in Arabic, I thought perhaps the word qalādah is not insulting in Arabic and translated it as “necklace.” Later, on Ayatollah Sistani’s website, I saw that the same very ugly, harsh, and embarrassing term had been used in Persian (qalādeh)—but he wrote that "the follower places it around his own neck, not the mujtahid^[7]”. I was wondering: even if the word is translated as polite “necklace,” why should a rational, mature human being hang a necklace on themselves to attach to a religious scholar? If we want to present Islam in a documented way to the next generation, or to truth-seeking foreign students, should we tell them that they must either become a mujtahid, act with precaution, or hang the mujtahid’s fatwa around their neck like …? Or should we hide the truth from them and hope that they too, like us, remain unaware of these name meanings for many years?!

Leaving aside the insult to human dignity, the above quotations contain a very baseless claim—that “the responsibility of actions does not lie with the follower, but will be borne by the marja‘.” Before seeing these sources, I used to think this belief was only an informal notion that had spread among people, or had been unconsciously promoted by local clerics. I did not imagine that scholars had formally written such a claim. To my great surprise, I showed these to a group of academic and seminary elites on Telegram and asked: how can this claim be reconciled with the famous verse “No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another” and several similar verses? Unfortunately, I received no convincing answer! My astonishment at myself grew even more—how had I heard this claim for so many years, accepted it implicitly or explicitly, and never thought about its contradiction with verses such as “Whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it”?!

These searches and Telegram discussions continued repeatedly until at one point the thought came to me that all the pieces of the puzzle were complete, and I no longer had any excuse to keep this matter to myself and not share it at least with relatives and friends. In any discussion that might arise, either I already had a firm, well-supported answer for my interlocutor, or if they brought up something new, it would be valuable and worth reflecting on—because after many discussions, no one had asked a new question I hadn’t considered, nor provided convincing answers to mine. In other words, I was putting something on the table that they had not paid attention to; and if someone could provide a solid answer, they would be presenting my missing piece—and what could be better than that? So I began raising the issue with relatives and various groups of friends, showing them the evidence, verses, hadiths, and quotations, and answering their objections and doubts as best as I could.

Of course, there were also groups who were not willing to listen or respond. From a friend who says, “I don’t have that kind of education and don’t understand these discussions,” to a senior university professor who says, “My expertise is in another field!!” to those whose work and life responsibilities leave them no time for group discussions, and friends whose distance or lack of access to social networks prevented conversation. All of this motivated me to collect and organize the notes and materials I had written in discussions and publish them together for friends and the general public. The result is the collection of writings now before you—though it is still incomplete. I have tried to keep it as concise as possible, in simple language, avoiding complex technical terms, and whenever Arabic text is used, to include a translation along with a link to the source. In particular, for Qur’anic verses, the links are to the Tanzil website so that readers can review other translations as well.

This collection is not merely to present a message to the audience, but a request for collective thinking and joint effort in the search for truth. For this purpose, a Telegram channel has been created, where the materials are also shared so that you can leave your opinions, criticisms, or suggestions in the comments under each post and share them with me and other readers. In some posts where my research has not reached a conclusion and further information could be key, sections titled “Challenge” have been specified so that if you have or find an answer, you can share it with us to be incorporated into future versions. Also, if any source links become inaccessible for an extended period, please inform me so that I can seek replacements. Dear readers who do not have access to Telegram can contact me via email at no2taqlid@rah-roshan.ir.

Finally, my dear friends and compatriots are constantly engaged with daily social issues and are always discussing the problems they face. In the aftermath of the 12-day war, the snapback mechanism, and so on, perhaps the only topic that has never occupied their minds is the issue of taqlid. Those who have considered it as rational and unquestionable—like a patient referring to a doctor—naturally saw no need to reflect or study it (just as I myself did not for my entire life until a year ago). And many of those who had previously rejected taqlid did not hope that, by referring to the Qur’an and hadith themselves, one could demonstrate the weakness of the justifications for it; nor would they believe that Islam opposes and fights it to such an extent. The present collection, however, seeks to invite both groups to reconsider what has been said about taqlid—and especially what has not been said—and to provide documentation and leads for discussion. For, in the author’s view, the root of all problems that have afflicted humanity throughout history and across geography is this very taqlid in its various forms. I hope that Almighty God grants all of us success so that we may accompany one another until the end of “Taqlid: Intellectual Slavery”.