The Verse of Surah al-Baqarah 170
The first verse in our review of verses rebuking taqlid is verse 170 of Surah al-Baqarah:
When it is said to them, 'Follow what God has sent down,' they say, 'No; but we will follow such things as we found our fathers practising.' What, even if their fathers understood nothing and were not guided? (2:170)
Does the verse only forbid taqlid in the faith fundamentals?
In Tafsir Ithna-Ashari (vol. 1, p. 374) under this verse, it is written:
"The noble verse indicates the condemnation of taqlid in the faith fundamentals (usul al-din), because reflection and reasoning are obligatory in them, and being satisfied with following fathers — especially when they are on a false path and misguided — is invalid and rationally and legally condemned. Therefore, a rational person must be alert, for this matter is a pretext for the corrupters in religion, and by this means they may lead religious people astray from the true religion."
The question that arises is: where in the verse does it specify that this condemnation of taqlid is only in the faith fundamentals and not in the branches and rulings? On the contrary, the preceding verses are about eating lawful things, and the following verses concern what is lawful or unlawful to eat. The verb "follow" (attabi'u) itself conveys practical following in actions and rulings, and there is no evidence that it merely includes beliefs. More precisely, from verse 165, the topic arises that some people elevate individuals from among themselves to the status of God, loving and following them, while on the Day of Judgment those leaders disown their followers and the followers see their own deeds. Then it says: "O people, eat of what is lawful and good in the earth, and follow not the steps of Satan; he commands you to evil and indecency, and that you should attribute to God what you do not know." Given the context and content of these verses, it is clear that these "things" attributed to God without knowledge are not merely theoretical beliefs but include rulings of the lawful and the unlawful.
After verse 170, it continues by describing the behavior of the unbelievers as similar to animals that act blindly without thought and reflection. Then it says: "He has only forbidden you carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and what has been hallowed to other than God" — and later severely rebukes those who conceal parts of God's Book and sell it for a small price, promising them punishment and fire. This too seems to concern rulings and actions that may be traded, and it is unlikely that theoretical and belief-related matters of the Book could be concealed (since they are mainly innate and rational). Then from verse 177 to verse 203, various issues are mentioned: charity, alms, retribution, bequests, fasting, trade, new moons, entering houses, jihad, sacred months, and pilgrimage! With all this, how could anyone imagine that verse 170, amidst all these verses, is merely about the faith fundamentals and beliefs and not about rulings and actions?! What evidence in this verse and its surrounding context could nullify all the evidence listed above and prove that God only negated taqlid in beliefs?
Does the verse refer to the fabricated concept of "blind taqlid"?
Another argument given to show that this verse does not contradict taqlid of scholars is that the verse forbids "blind" taqlid. For instance, in Tafsir Noor (vol. 1, p. 259):
"The previous verse warned us to avoid following the steps and commands of Satan. This verse states one of the instances of Satan's path, which is blind taqlid. Rational following and obedience are not objectionable; what the Qur'an criticizes is taqlid of those who themselves neither possess reason nor accept the guidance of the prophets."
In summary, the authors of Tafsir Ithna-Ashari, Tafsir Noor, and others claim that taqlid itself is not problematic; the problem arises when people choose a misguided, ignorant person without reason and unguided as their marja'. That is, if the addressees of this verse had checked whether their marja' was not misguided and ignorant, and possessed reason and guidance, then following them without inquiry and investigation into the reasons for their actions would be fine, and God would have no problem with taqlid of them. The question is: did those people actually know that their fathers were misguided, ignorant, and without reason, yet when told that God's word is so-and-so, they would say, "No, we like the actions of our ignorant, misguided, and unreasonable fathers"?! Is it possible for someone to be so foolish as to follow his marja' despite knowing his ignorance? Like someone who has a question about building architecture but follows his father who has been a tailor all his life and knows nothing about building houses — is someone this foolish worthy of being addressed by the Qur'an and having multiple verses revealed for him?!
The reality is that no, those people did not know their fathers were ignorant; on the contrary, they trusted their reason and guidance. Even if family affection for ancestors and their traditions, or even their own desires, blinded their vision, that affection and blindness caused them to think their method was more correct, more knowledgeable, and closer to God — not that they knew it was wrong and still desired it. I ask you, dear reader: if you see someone saying "I know so-and-so is ignorant and does not reason, but I follow him," would you still advise him with the words "Do you follow him even if he does not reason and is misguided?!" Does it make sense to ask someone who rejects clean, sweet water and says "I want to drink foul, rotten water": "Even if it is dirty and impure?" Certainly not. So it becomes clear that they too believed in their fathers and ancestors, and practiced taqlid of the knowledgeable from the ignorant — that is why God reminds them in this way.
In other words, a rhetorical question only makes sense when the addressee does not accept what is being conveyed to him. If the addressee already admitted to that matter, there would be no meaning in asking him about it in a rhetorical tone. Therefore, it becomes clear that the addressees of this verse thought they were following a knowledgeable and rational person, and God rhetorically asks them: "Even if they do not reason and are not guided?!" Consequently, this verse is precisely a negation of taqlid of the knowledgeable. Interestingly, God does not give them the final answer and does not directly say "They are ignorant and misguided; do not follow them; follow Me." Rather, He asks: "Even if...?" — meaning if you want to follow them, it is fine, provided that you yourself reason and weigh which path is more rational and guided.
Parent page: Verses Condemning Taqlid