Excerpt taken from the book “The Issue of Taqlīd in Religion” by Shaykh Zubair ‘Alī Zai رحمه اللهالحمد لله رب العالمين والصلوة والسلام على رسوله الأمين، أما بعد:
To blindly follow, without thought, without evidence, and without any proof, the statement of any non-Prophet and to consider it binding upon oneself is known as absolute Taqlīd (تقلید مطلق).
One form of Taqlīd is personal Taqlīd (تقلید شخصی), in which the follower, through his actions, holds the belief that:
“It is obligatory upon Muslims to follow only one of the four Imams — Mālik, Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, or Abū Ḥanīfah — (for example, in the Indian subcontinent, Imām Abū Ḥanīfah), and it is forbidden to follow the remaining three.”
Both forms of Taqlīd — absolute and personal — are false and rejected, as is proven from the Qur’ān, Ḥadīth, consensus (ijmā‘), and the sayings of the pious predecessors (salaf al-ṣāliḥīn).
Our esteemed teacher Ḥāfiẓ Zubair ‘Alī Zai حفظه الله authored a research-based article refuting both personal and non-personal Taqlīd, which was published in five parts in the al-Ḥadīth (Hazro) magazine (Issues 8 to 12).
Now, for the benefit of the general Muslim public, this research work is being published with minor revisions and additions, seeking the goodwill of the Muslims. We supplicate to Allah ﷻ to, by His grace and bounty, remove the people from the darkness of Taqlīd and enable them to walk upon the Qur’ān, Ḥadīth, and Ijmā‘ in light of the understanding of the salaf al-ṣāliḥīn.
Āmīn
And Allah is capable over all things.
⚠ Important Note:
The people of Ḥadīth — both scholars and commoners — have a fundamental disagreement with the Ahl al-Taqlīd (such as Deobandis, Barelvis, and others like them) on the issue of personal Taqlīd.
The followers of Taqlīd tend to evade this core point of contention and cleverly shift the debate toward absolute Taqlīd, continuing discussions and debates on that front, while never being ready to engage or research the matter of personal Taqlīd.
Ashraf ‘Alī Thānwī, whose feet-washing is believed (by Deobandis) to be a source of salvation in the Hereafter
(See: Tadhkirat al-Rashīd, Vol. 1, Page 113), himself said:
“But consensus (ijmā‘) has never occurred on personal Taqlīd.”
(Tadhkirat al-Rashīd, Vol. 1, Page 131)
Muḥammad Taqī ‘Uthmānī writes regarding personal Taqlīd:
“It was not a Shar‘ī ruling, but rather an administrative fatwā.”
(The Legal Status of Taqlīd, Page 65, Sixth Edition, 1413 AH)
It is a matter of deep regret that this non-Shar‘ī ruling was made obligatory upon themselves, and thus, they began distancing themselves from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah.
Aḥmad Yār Na‘īmī (Barelwī) writes:
“All four schools — Ḥanafī, Shāfi‘ī, Mālikī, Ḥanbalī — and likewise the four ṭarīqahs — Qādrī, Chishtī, Naqshbandī, Suhrawardī — are all complete innovations.”
(Jā’ al-Ḥaqq, Vol. 1, Page 222, Old Edition, on types and signs of innovations)
It is deeply regrettable that even after acknowledging their innovated status, these individuals, through the categorization of innovations, have clung to certain bid‘ahs and held them dear to their hearts.
Now, begin the detailed and evidence-based study of the book “The Issue of Taqlīd in Islam”, for a thorough refutation of both personal and absolute Taqlīd.
وما علينا إلا البلاغ
Fadl Akbar Kāshmīrī
13 Rabī‘ al-Awwal 1427 AH
