Not Every Referral to a Specialist is Rational

One of the most commonly used justifications for taqlid is that reason dictates that the ignorant should refer to the knowledgeable. The argument is made analogically: "When you want to build a house, do you do it yourself or go to an architect? Naturally, you consult a specialist. So in religious and legal matters, you should also refer to the experts."

In response, it must be said: this depends on what is asked of us. Is the goal simply for us to have a house, or for us to become architects ourselves? If the goal is for us to become architects, and we delegate the construction of the house to others without caring how they build it, we will make no progress toward becoming architects. In that case, not only have we failed to fulfil our duty, but while thinking we have done something useful and taking pride in the house we have obtained, we have deliberately neglected the primary responsibility placed upon us.

A similar example is given: when your car breaks down, do you take it to a mechanic or fix it yourself? The answer to this question also depends on what the Creator intended by these circumstances. That is, the One who created us, made us need a vehicle called a car, placed the possibility of breakdown in it, and on the other hand created us such that we do not inherently have the ability to repair it without training, and placed alongside us someone with expertise in this area — was His goal simply for us to ride in a functioning car? If so, yes, we can entrust the car to an expert, provided that person truly has the ability to repair it correctly.

But if the goal was to train us as mechanics — and evidence and indications confirm such a goal^[1] — then if we entrust the car's repair to someone else and remain uninformed about how it was repaired, we will never become knowledgeable mechanics. Consequently, God's purpose will not be realised, and His wise plans and designs will remain fruitless — and that itself is a great error.

On the other hand, if without referring to experts we directly attempt repairs ourselves, not only may the car not be fixed, but the likelihood of mistake and further damage also increases, and the learning process becomes far more difficult and perhaps impossible. Therefore, the correct approach is to refer to an expert for learning, not for delegating responsibility and thoughtlessly following without learning. One cannot entrust the work to an expert and then say: "I have no involvement in the details or correctness of it." Such an approach contradicts the original purpose of creation and human individual responsibility.

Another Example of an Irrational Referral of the Ignorant to the Learned

Another example given to justify taqlid is that of a patient who does not know how to find treatment and refers to a medical specialist. But as explained, such examples are not very accurate. Our situation is more like that of students at a boarding school, where everyone is expected to learn something and progress according to their ability. Everyone is assigned tasks, and in the end, both theoretical and practical exams will be held.

Now suppose some students reason as follows: "We cannot possibly study all subjects like science, mathematics, etc. This is too difficult and beyond our capacity. We think the person who built and planned this school did not realise that this volume of lessons exceeds our ability. The teacher could not explain properly for us to understand. Today, work has become specialised; we should just find the most knowledgeable student; let him read, understand, and on exam day tell us what to write. Or in the practical exam, tell us what to do, and we will do it without knowing why it is correct or how it relates to the question. Hopefully, we will be given a grade. Besides, if everyone were to study and answer on their own, everyone would give different answers, and that would not be good! Everyone should write from the smart student's paper or the solution manual so that the answers are uniform."

The question is: would such students actually achieve the goal of education and training? Suppose everyone writes the best answer for the assignments but without learning, merely copying from someone they think will be the top student. The principal and teacher do not consider the assignment itself as the goal. A school is not a factory that only wants obedient, thoughtless workers. A school is a place for learning, growth, and awareness. The same is true for the world and the issue of taqlid. Both we and the marja' taqlid have duties, and both must answer within the same evaluation system. But some people think that someone else can answer for them on the Day of Reckoning. That is not the case.

If more active students provide the completed and finalised answers and exercises to their classmates, they must also show the solution and reasoning for reaching the answer and remind them that until you learn the lesson yourselves, merely writing these answers and doing the exercises without understanding is of no benefit. They should not claim: "Do the assignments exactly as we determine and do not concern yourself with whether they are right or wrong — the responsibility is with us." Furthermore, justifications such as "the path to learning the lesson is not closed; if a student wants to understand how these answers relate to those questions, we will explain; but if he does not want to, he can just do as we say and his work will be acceptable" are not acceptable.

To draw a parallel without exact comparison, today the result is that no one even opens the textbook anymore, no one refers to the words and notes of the teachers, and everyone thinks that the answers written in the solution manual suffice for any exam, and if not, the author of the solution manual is responsible and will answer at the end of the year! Are these problems not prevalent in our school of religiosity?

Parent page: Taqlid from the Perspective of Reason

Return to: Table of Contents