Religion differs from other specialized sciences

The argument that "we are not experts in all sciences and we refer to specialists, so the same should apply to religion" is a well-known argument, but it is incorrect. There are fundamental differences between people referring to experts in other sciences and referring to experts in religious matters, which are addressed in this section.

Awareness is a condition in religious acts

The major difference between religion and other sciences is that in religion and religious acts, the awareness of the person performing the act is a condition. In medicine, architecture, and mechanics, awareness is not the criterion. For example, if we refer to an architect to build a house and he says to build with a particular plan or method, and we build without understanding the reason, the goal is achieved and there is no problem. Or even if we entrust the entire work to him, and he builds the house without our knowledge or consent, perhaps our goal of having a good house is still achieved. Similarly, in medicine, if a doctor prescribes a particular medicine and the patient takes it, even if the patient does not know what the medicine is or why it is beneficial, it will ultimately have its effect and health will be restored, God willing. The patient might even be unconscious and have medicine injected without any awareness, and it would still work.

But in all religious acts, the awareness of the person performing the act determines its acceptance. That is, in people referring to a religious expert, if for example people are given an "injection" of prayer and they become prayerful from then on, it has no value — the goal is not achieved^[1]. If a person is told "prayer is good, pray," and they pray, they benefit from whatever they understand of prayer. If they understand nothing, they gain nothing. If a person only understands that prayer is obligatory for God's pleasure and not praying displeases God and leads to hell, they perform the prayer of the fearful and benefit only to that extent, developing a fearful personality. If someone understands that prayer is to show they are not rebellious before God, they perform the prayer of the arrogant and develop such a personality, thinking they are important in God's court and that their being or not being rebellious matters to God or His other servants. If someone only understands that prayer is for the remembrance of God, they might imagine that God is worried about being forgotten and has therefore commanded everyone to remember Him — such a person themselves craves the attention of others and may do anything to be noticed.

Therefore, for the worshiper to benefit properly and fully from prayer, they must complete their understanding of the why of prayer. They must know that prayer is also a means of forbidding indecency and wrongdoing. They must know that prayer is also for being with the congregation and setting aside differences and disagreements, and all the other reasons mentioned in the Qur'an and hadith. And what has been said is not limited to prayer — in general, the essence, manner, and quality of all actions depend on the intention we have for them, and the reward and benefit we receive, as well as the personality we develop, all go back to that intention. (Similar examples can be given for khums, pilgrimage, jihad, and all other rulings, and we would see that many instances of these have actually occurred and been experienced around us.)

This intention, which is so important and influential, cannot become pure, rich, and deep except through awareness, reflection, thought, and pursuing evidence. Following clues to reach the evidence, weighing different pieces of evidence, and evaluating them in the real world helps form this awareness. Conversely, taqlid — i.e., not examining evidence, suspending thought and reflection about the action with justifications such as "the expert has thought of everything, the follower should just do it and move on, not concern themselves with evidence, it will suffice God willing, and if not, the responsibility is with the expert" — destroys awareness. Note that in this discussion, the correctness of the ruling is not the primary criterion. That is, even if the fatwa is correct, the mere fact that the intellectual engagement of the doer with the evidence for the action is severed causes awareness and intention to be sacrificed. The same applies to the issue of removal of responsibility: mere responsibility brings awareness from zero to near one hundred, while removal of responsibility reduces awareness and prepares the ground for complacency, even if the ruling is correct.

Thus, the role of the religious expert is to increase awareness — to acquaint people with the evidence and reasons behind rulings and to open their eyes to the words of God and the Infallibles (peace be upon them). This is similar to a teacher or university professor who helps the inquirer become knowledgeable themselves, so that in any matter, by applying their acquired knowledge and even searching sources and asking the right questions of others, they can find the correct solution — rather than telling the student, "The reasons are too difficult for you, don't concern yourself with evidence, just watch what I do and do the same."

The outcome of religious acts is not determined until Judgment Day

Another fundamental difference is that in medicine, architecture, mechanics, and other similar sciences, the outcome for the inquirer becomes clear sooner or later, and people realize the level of the expert's skill and decide accordingly which expert is good or not. But in religion, the outcome of many disputed matters is not clear until Judgment Day. For example, no one can definitively determine whether a bank loan taken and repaid under certain conditions is acceptable in God's sight or not.

Moreover, in taqlid, because the marja' says "the responsibility for right or wrong is with me, and the followers should not concern themselves with it — I will answer on Judgment Day," even if the followers suffer bad consequences from an action, their attention is not drawn to whether the action was right or wrong. If they investigate the matter, they will think of everything except the possibility that the fatwa might have been wrong. For example, they divide inheritance according to a fatwa and see that one party subsequently encounters numerous problems and, figuratively speaking, ends up in utter misery — but from their perspective, everything may be at fault except the fatwa according to which the division was made. Because they do not consider themselves responsible regarding the fatwa and have taken the view of the most knowledgeable marja' as God's view, they either do not think about the possibility of the fatwa being wrong, or they conclude that God has willed and decreed that this person should face these problems, and that this is part of God's tests!

Religion is unlimited and foundational to everything

Religion is very fundamental and influences all areas, whereas specialized fields are limited. For example, if a doctor gives advice about house construction, we would not accept it and would ask him not to interfere in matters he is not expert in unless he provides clear evidence. But a religious scholar gives opinions in all areas — for example, if they recommend or prohibit referring to a particular type of doctor or architect, we act upon it. We have all heard the proposition that religion has a program and has set policies for all dimensions of life. Therefore, it cannot be compared to any single dimension.

If a religious scholar declares someone on the other side of the world an apostate, people get up and go there to execute what they imagine to be God's command. When and where does a doctor say, "I have found a virus in a person that will definitely kill you, so you must go and kill him immediately, or even restrict and quarantine him"? Even if a doctor you trust says so, and a hundred other doctors confirm it, would anyone restrict that person — let alone kill him — merely because of their opinion, without asking for their evidence and proof? When and where does an architect say, "According to my expertise, the pillar of so-and-so's house on the other side of the world must be demolished," and people set out to implement his expertise?! Be fair — religion cannot be compared to other specializations in any way, and it cannot bear taqlid.

Related content:

In the section "Related Multimedia," Mr. Malekian also refers to the differences between religion and other specializations in his lectures.

Parent page: Taqlid from the Perspective of Reason

Return to: Table of Contents