The Verse of Nafr (Surah al-Tawbah 122)

It is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. For every division of them, why should not a group go forth to gain deep understanding (tafaqquh) in religion, and to warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware? (Tawbah 9:122)

This verse, known as the Verse of Nafr (Sending Forth), is most often presented as the primary scriptural evidence for taqlid in the Qur'an. Yet, as is clear from its text, it has no direct bearing on taqlid. That is, in a situation where we would expect the most important verse on taqlid to give a direct command and specify its limits and details, we see that the apparent meaning of the verse — apart from the word tafaqquh — has nothing to do with taqlid. So how is it used to defend taqlid? Usually in two ways, explained below.

The claim that the obligation of tafaqquh is equivalent to the obligation of taqlid

The first approach is to argue that this verse makes it obligatory for some to engage in tafaqquh and convey it to others, therefore it is also obligatory for others to follow and obey without attaining knowledge. For example, Ayatollah Khoei in his book Al-Ijtihad wa al-Taqlid states that this verse makes the journey obligatory, makes tafaqquh obligatory, and makes warning (indhar) obligatory — and these three obligations are not the ultimate goal. Rather, the goal is that those who hear should become cautious (tahadhdhur). Therefore, it is obligatory for people to fear and be cautious from the warning of the faqih, even if this warning does not produce knowledge in them^[1].

In critiquing this interpretation, it suffices to say that the mere fact that people saw someone travel, engage in tafaqquh, return, and begin warning does not prove that they engaged in tafaqquh correctly — such that people should trust them and follow whatever they say without asking for evidence. It is far too simplistic to say that anyone who traveled and returned with credentials — and perhaps the testimony of two expert and just individuals — guarantees that any opinion they give is correct. And if on Judgment Day it turns out to be incorrect, the people would say, "We saw that he traveled, and two just individuals testified that he engaged in tafaqquh correctly, and now that he has returned we need not ask him what evidence and proof his opinion is based on — his travel and tafaqquh were proof enough for us!" This is especially problematic given that following without attaining knowledge is clearly prohibited in Verse 36 of Surah al-Isra', which is far more explicit than Mr. Khoei's indirect and three-stage interpretation of this verse.

Beyond this general response, looking at the details, the wording of the verse is far from what they try to derive. First, if this verse were meant to convey the obligation of taqlid, why is the word la'allahum ("perhaps/so that") used? Is there anywhere else in the Qur'an where the word la'alla has been interpreted as implying obligation? Second, even if we assume that "perhaps" is meant to convey "must," caution and fear are still different from following and obedience. If God intended following, He would not have hesitated to say la'allahum yattabi'un instead of la'allahum yahdharun. And even if He had said "follow," it would not imply taqlid, because we know that following is different from imitation. Third, warning and frightening are different from giving fatwa. If God intended by this verse to convey taqlid, why did He not use more explicit terms such as fatwa, judging between people, and the like? Do the treatises of the maraji' today actually "warn" people?

Another point: assuming that indhar (warning) in this verse refers to what the maraji' do, then why does the verse say that the one who traveled and became a marja' should return and serve as a marja' for his own people? For example, suppose Shaykh al-Kulayni and Shaykh al-Mufid traveled from their cities and became maraji' — would their warning and rulings apply only to their own people and cities, as the verse says "when they return to them"? Another point: if God intended marja'iyyat (the institution of emulation), why should a group from every community go? Wouldn't one or two people suffice? Suppose a group went and became maraji' — shouldn't the next verse specify how the people should identify the most knowledgeable among those maraji'?! It is clear that the verse's indication of what taqlid advocates are looking for is so weak that none of these questions can be answered through it.

Some also say: "If a group goes to engage in tafaqquh and returns to warn, but it is not obligatory for people to accept whatever they say without attaining knowledge, then the entire enterprise of warning, tafaqquh, and travel would be futile and meaningless!"^[2] It is enough to ask them: why? That is, if a group goes to engage in tafaqquh, and when they return, people ask them for evidence for their opinions, and they provide evidence, and people find their evidence logical and act accordingly — would the command to warn still be futile from their perspective?! Why do some scholars' minds go to the point that if we go and engage in tafaqquh, it is only useful if people accept our words with closed eyes and ears? Otherwise (i.e., if they accept with evidence), it is futile?! Moreover, even if no one accepts under any circumstances, the very act of tafaqquh and warning can at least be beneficial for those who traveled themselves.

You should know that fiqh in its original meaning is knowledge of Islam — in other words, knowledge of God. Its technical meaning is the derivation of God's rulings, which also leads to knowledge of God Himself. The thought that a scholar would say, "I go to know God or His rulings," and then instead of being fully, one hundred percent, with all his being, focused on and captivated by his pursuit of God, with the motivation of drawing closer to Him, he looks behind himself and says, "If no one blindly follows behind me without asking for evidence, then this attention and research of mine about God and His commands is futile" — makes any listener's blood boil! We are not aware of individuals' intentions and cannot judge them, but the very expression of this view and its documentation is a great and important sign that partly explains why over all these years scholars have not thought about and answered the questions and objections raised in this collection: because they have had a strong and prominent preconception that if someone does not imitate, their expertise and tafaqquh would be useless!^[3]

The claim that the verse prohibits everyone from engaging in tafaqquh

The second approach is that when it is said "everyone must engage in tafaqquh to the extent of their ability," this verse is cited as evidence that God commanded not everyone to engage in tafaqquh — only a group should do so. This interpretation is also attributed by Allamah Tabatabai to others, and he rejects it because it is "far from the context of the verse"^[4].

The verses before and after this verse relate to jihad. For this reason, many Persian translators have added the phrase "for jihad" or similar to the beginning of the verse, meaning that not all should go forth for jihad^[5]. However, a few have added the phrase "for tafaqquh" and similar^[6], meaning "it is not fitting for all believers to go forth (to seek knowledge)." This interpretation is historically implausible, as it is unlikely that the inclination toward knowledge and tafaqquh was so great at that time that there was a risk that all residents of a city would want to go forth for tafaqquh and seek knowledge, necessitating this verse to prevent people from this mistake! This point is entirely obvious and does not require a revelation — that if everyone goes forth for knowledge, the rest of society's needs would suffer. But in the time of jihad and war, it is far more likely that people would think everyone must go for jihad and no one should avoid jihad on the pretext of seeking knowledge — and this verse came to counter this mistaken notion.

Even if we accept the above interpretation, this verse prohibits the universal journey for tafaqquh. But we have not said and do not say that everyone should travel; rather, we say that every person, wherever they are and whatever their work and occupation, must engage in tafaqquh in their religion to the extent of their ability and opportunity. In other words, this verse prohibits universal journey, not universal tafaqquh. Interestingly, in one of the hadiths that command universal tafaqquh, Imam Sadiq (pbuh) cites this very verse, showing that the above interpretations cannot be correct:

"Engage in tafaqquh in religion, for whoever among you does not engage in tafaqquh in religion is a Bedouin. Indeed, God says in His Book: '...why should not a group go forth to gain deep understanding in religion, and to warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware?'"^[7]

The first part of this hadith, without referring to any specific group, commands everyone using a plural verb: "Engage in tafaqquh in religion." It then says, "Whoever among you does not engage in tafaqquh in religion is a Bedouin." Imam Sadiq (pbuh) addresses everyone with this expression and then refers to the Verse of Nafr. Is it possible that God's intent from this verse was that not everyone should engage in tafaqquh, yet an Infallible Imam cites the same verse to command everyone to engage in tafaqquh?! Here, advocates of taqlid — especially those who insist that the Qur'an must only be interpreted and understood by referring to narrations — are invited to bring a hadith in which the Infallibles (pbuh) said, under this verse, that not everyone should engage in tafaqquh!

Contradictory interpretations of the verse

Interestingly, the same verse has also been used for two other purposes: as evidence for the authority of the single narrator (khabar al-wahid) and for the obligation of learning religious rulings^[8]. If we accept the latter, we can say that this verse is actually evidence against taqlid — for learning — because in taqlid, no one learns anything. By definition, taqlid means following without attaining knowledge, and the only thing an imitator obtains is knowing what the marja's opinion is. Furthermore, Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi in his commentary interprets this verse as "jihad against ignorance"^[9]. If we accept that this verse was revealed both for jihad against ignorance and for permitting taqlid (i.e., permitting remaining in ignorance), does this not lead to contradiction?! When we ask any imitator a question and they say, "I don't know, I'm not an expert, I only know what my marja's opinion is," do we conclude that ignorance has been fought and people have emerged from ignorance?! In the continuation of his commentary, he addresses "the importance of teaching and learning" (p. 194 of the same source), and again the same problem arises: with taqlid, teaching and learning do not occur; rather, taqlid suspends teaching and learning. In a word, the message of the verse is so general and comprehensive that it has been cited both in defense of taqlid and against it.

Endorsement by others as evidence

Ibn Shahr Ashub, in his book on the mutashabih (ambiguous) and disputed verses of the Qur'an, states that this verse neither indicates the authority of the single narrator (khabar al-wahid) nor taqlid^[10]:

This does not indicate that it is permissible to act upon the report of a single narrator. For even if we accept that the word ta'ifah (group) can apply to one or two individuals, there is no indication in the verse that God Almighty has called them warners (mundhirin). The warner is one who frightens and cautions, who alerts to reflection and contemplation. Neither is his imitation obligatory, nor is acceptance from him required without proof. That is why He said: "so that they may beware."

Discuss on Telegram

Parent page: The Qur'an Has Not Recommended Taqlid

Return to: Table of Contents