Taqlid of the Common People from Jurists
The only narration that recommends taqlid is found in a book attributed to Imam Hasan al-Askari (p). However, the notable point is that two of the narrators of this book are unknown and have no credibility. In terms of content, the conditions it specifies for marja's cannot be verified. Since the hadith text is relatively long, we mention the more important parts below, but the full text can be examined through the provided references.
The narration begins with verses 78 and 79 of Surah al-Baqarah:
And some of them are unlettered, knowing not the Book, but only fancies and mere conjectures. (2:78) So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, then say, 'This is from God,' that they may sell it for a little price; so woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings. (79)
After this, explanations are narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (p) rebuking the illiteracy of the Jews — that they do not read the Book and cannot distinguish the divine Book from one falsely attributed to God except by conjecture and by imitating scholars, even though imitation of them was forbidden. Then it continues:
A man said to Imam al-Sadiq (p): "If these common Jews do not know the Book except through what they hear from their scholars, and have no other way, then why has God rebuked them for imitating and accepting their scholars' words? Are the common people among us not like the common people among the Jews, imitating their scholars? If accepting the words of scholars is not permissible for them, then it should not be permissible for our common people either."
The Imam (p) replied: "There is a similarity in one respect and a difference in another between our common people and our scholars, and the common people of the Jews and their scholars. As for the similarity: God rebuked our common people for imitating their scholars, just as He rebuked theirs. As for the difference: no, it is not like that." The narrator said: "O son of the Messenger of God, explain the difference to me." The Imam (p) said: "The common people of the Jews knew that their scholars and leaders were telling obvious lies, consuming forbidden things, taking bribes, and changing rulings from their true places for the sake of intercessions, considerations, and expediencies."
In summary, the Jewish scholars were very corrupt and sinful, and the Jews knew all about their corruption but still imitated them. If Muslims also imitate such jurists, they would be like the Jews whom God rebuked for imitating corrupt jurists. Finally, the main and famous part of the narration that permits taqlid for Shi'a but sets conditions for jurists:
"As for those among the jurists who guard their own souls, protect their religion, oppose their desires, and obey the command of their Master, then it is for the common people to imitate them."
The narration continues with further explanations that are not crucial to our discussion.
Invalidity of the Chain of Transmission
The most famous objection to this narration is that its chain of transmission is notoriously unreliable. For example, the head of the University of Qur'an and Hadith has said:
"Of course, from a historical and hadith-scientific perspective, we do not have high confidence in the attribution of this book to the Imam. Especially regarding the Tafsir attributed to Imam Hasan al-Askari (p), based on bibliographical information and studies, we cannot attribute this book to him, nor can we attribute its dictation or dictation to him. The reason is that the two individuals who narrate this collection from Imam Hasan al-Askari (p) are people about whom we have no information in biographical evaluation books regarding their hadith status, or at least they cannot be authenticated — meaning we have no confidence in their expertise, honesty, and accuracy." (Source)
The unreliability of this book is such that in recent years an article was written to prove the contrary. A search led to an article by Mr. Reza Estadi titled "A Discussion about the Tafsir of Imam Hasan al-Askari (p)." Interestingly, the article does not resolve the identity problem of the two unknown narrators and does not say "we have identified the questionable narrators and they were trustworthy people." Rather, the main work of the article is to quote opposing and supporting views on the credibility of this Tafsir and ultimately conclude that since Shaykh Saduq trusted this book and quoted hadiths from it, we should not completely reject it and should examine its content like other hadiths we have doubts about.
The article's conclusion states:
"...although this weakens the narrations, it does not make them fabricated and does not remove their authority, because according to Shaykh Ansari, we gain confidence in the issuance [of the hadith] through the content and sense its issuance."
Following the Arabic text to find Shaykh Ansari's original statement, we find that he mentioned this very hadith "fa-li'l-'awamm an yuqalliduhu" in his book Fara'id al-Usul and then said:
"This noble hadith, from which traces of truth are apparent, indicates the permissibility of accepting the word of one known to be cautious about lying..."
Thus it becomes clear that Shaykh Ansari sensed traces of truth in the content of the hadith "yuqalliduhu," and this became evidence for the credibility of the book's content. From the book's credibility, defenders of taqlid want to conclude that this very hadith "yuqalliduhu" is authentic! The circular reasoning and invalidity of this argument need no explanation. The fact that scholars may have a positive bias toward such hadiths — when a hadith permits people to follow scholars without asking for evidence, they may unconsciously perceive traces of truth in it — is worth reflection and examination. One example of this was mentioned in the section The Verse of Nafr.
Another point regarding this defense is that Shaykh Saduq's trust in a narrator is not strong enough evidence for us in such an important matter that affects our worldly and otherworldly affairs, to rely on a single hadith. In other words, an extremely foundational issue is tied to a very weak thread — Shaykh Saduq's trust in the book and quoting from it. Even if Shaykh Saduq had evidence between himself and God for this trust, can we open a hundred percent account on his infallibility or even his non-error in this single instance? Should I implement all matters — from personal prayers to social rulings to apostasy rulings — without asking for evidence, simply because Shaykh Saduq trusted the credibility of this book? Would God accept such logic from me?
Generally speaking, regarding Mr. Estadi, Shaykh Ansari, Shaykh Saduq, and other scholars: to prove the correctness and credibility of this book, and especially this particular hadith "yuqalliduhu," the scholars are themselves one party to the dispute and logically cannot be the source of granting credibility to this hadith, saying "regardless of the narrators, we consider the text of the hadith authentic." This is like someone presenting a permit to enter people's homes, and when we check who issued the permit and whether its signature and seal are valid, the person who brought the permit himself says: "regardless of the signature and seal, I am confident of its authenticity from the content of the permit!"
Content Criticism and Contradictions
Even if we accept that this book, like other hadith books, contains authentic, acceptable, weak, and rejected hadiths and should be examined content-wise, we see that in terms of content, the hadith is both suspicious and impractical. Suspicious because a very fundamental and foundational ruling that is supposed to determine the structure of religiosity for the majority of people across the world for all ages comes under a verse whose main content is the severe rebuke of followers of other religions for imitating scholars. Now this unsourced narration comes to say that Shi'a are exempt from this severe rebuke — with conditions! If a positive narration under verses that praise scholars (e.g., "Only those of His servants who have knowledge fear God") had come, saying "now that God has given scholars such status, we the Infallibles declare to you that the words of scholars are binding on you even if they do not bring evidence — with only a few conditions..." and its chain of transmission was weak, we could say perhaps the information about those two narrators was lost over centuries and the hadith might be trusted. But for such an exception to be made under such a verse, any sensible person must reflect on its credibility.
As for being impractical: a person who accepts that he is a common person ('ammi) and must refer to a jurist to determine right and wrong in religion, and whose source is the jurist — how can he verify whether a particular jurist is a protector of his religion? He must first know the religion to judge whether someone protects it. Similarly, regarding the condition "obedient to the command of his Master": if the person admits to being a common person in need of taqlid to know the Master's command, how can he verify whether a particular mujtahid is obedient to his Master's command or obedient to his teacher, or to those in power, or to his own desires?! Or regarding the condition "opposing his desires": even the writer of these lines cannot judge about himself whether he does this for God's pleasure or for his own desires and self-aggrandizement?! Therefore, when we cannot give reliable information about our own hearts, how can we judge the inner hearts of scholars, who generally appear righteous, as to whether they oppose their desires or go along with them?!
Even if we find a jurist with these conditions, how do we know that in a particular matter he has not disobeyed his Master's command? Since he is not infallible, for various reasons and motives he may commit unintentional or intentional errors. We have no choice but to ask them to present the verse, hadith, and rational evidence behind their ruling, do the same for other scholars to the extent of our ability, and then try to determine which of them in that particular matter is the protector of religion, obedient to the Master's command, and opposing his desires. If we are to do this, then it is no longer taqlid, and the phrase "yuqalliduhu" (they imitate him) loses its meaning!
The content contradictions of the narration are also notable. For example, at the beginning of the hadith, in explaining the verse, it says the Jews were illiterate to the extent that they could not distinguish between the divine Book and a forged book. But in the part where it wants to explain the difference between Shi'a and Jews, it says the Jews knew that the scholars changed rulings ("bi taghyir al-ahkam") and knew they committed forbidden acts ("yuqarifun al-muharramat"). How can these two be reconciled? Even the person who asked the Imam confirmed that the Jews had no way to determine right from wrong in the Book except through their scholars — "these common Jews do not know the Book except by what they hear from their scholars; they have no other way." It seems that if someone inserted the part about the difference between Shi'a and Jews into the hadith from himself, he was probably not aware of these contradictions or hoped no one would notice.
Another contradiction: the narration says the Jews were aware of all kinds of corruption and immorality of their scholars and knew in their hearts that someone who did these things was a transgressor (fasiq) and not permitted to attribute his words to God — yet they still imitated them. This clearly contradicts the definition of taqlid. In taqlid, one follows a scholar hoping that he will take responsibility for the muqallid's actions on the Day of Judgment and be answerable. How can someone who admits to a scholar's transgression sell his worldly and otherworldly life to him? And even if someone does this knowingly, his action is no longer taqlid but conscious following of misguided people. The verse itself says they had only fancies and conjectures.
Another objection to this narration: what is the definition of "jurist" and "common person"? Given that this narration only permits taqlid for the common person, is a university professor in non-religious fields also a common person? What about students at various levels? Does the narration mean only the illiterate (ummiyyun)? In today's age, when most people have access to the internet and countless books, who can be called a common person?! Moreover, have God or the Imams (p) ever used such a term to refer to people? On the other hand, when scholars themselves disagree on the definition of a jurist, and some even excommunicate others, who determines whether someone is a jurist so that we can then examine the stated conditions?! Especially if we consider common people as those who do not read books and cannot distinguish forged books from divine books, how will they verify someone's expertise in jurisprudence?!
The Relationship Between This Narration and Current Taqlid Rulings
Suppose this narration permits taqlid. Where in the current rulings of taqlid is it similar to this narration? Where in this narration is there any mention of separating the fundamentals and derivations of faith and assigning different duties for each? Where is the discussion of a'lamiyyah (being the most learned) and the single marja' raised? If someone finds several individuals who meet the conditions stated in this hadith and imitates all of them, and in cases of disagreement acts according to the opinion most compatible with his reason and nature and most defensible — which part of this narration does he violate, causing scholars to conclude that the marja' must be a single person and the most learned? Where in this narration is precaution (ihtiyat) permitted? This narration divides people into only two categories — jurist and common person — so where do other groups fit? Where in this narration is it confirmed that the responsibility of the muqallid's actions falls on the jurist and the muqallids have no responsibility? Where in this narration is the collection of religious funds entrusted to that jurist?
Certainly, we do not expect that the entire chapter of ijtihad and taqlid from scholars' books was determined by this single narration. But we ask these questions because this is the only narration that recommends taqlid and is, in a sense, the key narration. When a hadith is supposed to establish a ruling of such breadth and importance, one would expect it to reasonably determine its limits and boundaries, rather than giving a general permission and then leaving scholars to resort to narrations with even weaker indications for details that may be more important than the original ruling and change the entire outcome. We have mentioned in other sections: if God and the Imams (p) truly intended to establish such an important mechanism for preserving Islam throughout history and changing human life, one would expect much more teaching than this single narration.
Return to the Root of the Problem
Finally, it is worth noting: why did this verse and narration rebuke the imitation of the Jews? What had happened? The text of the verse and the initial explanations of the narration show that their taqlid caused them to know nothing of the Book and to accept whatever was told to them as God's word and command. If this is why their taqlid was bad, has the result of current taqlid not become practically the same? Shi'a from top to bottom all say: "We don't know, we have no expertise; whether such and such ruling is in the Qur'an or falsely attributed to it is not our business; go ask the experts; we only act on the scholars' rulings and have nothing to do with the afterlife — that's their responsibility." It is clear that the verse and the beginning of the narration expect people to know their religion and not take it blindly from others. Suppose our taqlid differs from that of the Jews. When the end result is the same, what conclusion do you draw, and what answer do you have before the verse?
Parent page: We Have No Narration for Taqlid
Back to: Table of Contents