Excerpt from the book “Deen Mein Taqlid Ka Mas’ala” by Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai رحمه الله.
There are two well-known types of Taqlid (unquestioning imitation in religious matters):
In this type, the follower (Muqallid) accepts and acts upon the unsupported sayings of someone other than the Prophet ﷺ, without any specification, blindly and thoughtlessly.
Important Clarification:
It is absolutely right and valid for an ignorant person to ask a scholar for a ruling. This is not called Taqlid, as has been referenced previously. Some people mistakenly label this as Taqlid due to misunderstanding, but this is incorrect.
For example, when an unlearned individual asks Taqi Usmani Deobandi or Ghulam Rasool Saeedi Barelvi about a matter and acts upon it, no one claims or assumes that the person is a follower of “Taqi Usmani” (i.e., a “Taqi Usmani-ite”) or “Ghulam Rasool” (i.e., a “Ghulam Rasool-ite”).
In this type, the follower (Muqallid) specifically and exclusively imitates a single individual other than the Prophet ﷺ, blindly accepting all of his sayings and actions.
This second type itself has two manifestations:
❀ Claiming to follow only in Ijtihadi matters:
“We follow the Qur’an, Hadith, Ijma’, and Ijtihad. We do not do Taqlid in explicit (text-based) matters. We only follow Imam Abu Hanifah and his established fatwas in Ijtihadi issues. If an opinion of the Imam contradicts Qur’an and Hadith, we abandon it.”
This is the claim of modern Deobandi and Barelvi debaters, such as Yunus Nomani and others.
❀ Following Imam Abu Hanifah in all matters—whether supported by Qur’an and Hadith or not:
Even if the opinion contradicts the Qur’an and Hadith, it is still followed. In some cases, the Book of Allah, Sunnah, and Ijma’ are rejected in favor of a preferred opinion of the Imam.
This is the prevalent practice among the general public and scholars of present-day Deobandi and Barelvi circles.
All forms of blind, baseless Taqlid are incorrect and invalid, but this second form of Taqlid Shakhsi is particularly dangerous and misguided. This is the very form of Taqlid rejected and opposed by the Ahl al-Hadith and Salafi scholars and masses.
Our teacher, Hafiz Abdul Mannan Noorpoori, defines this type of Taqlid as follows:
“Taqlid is to accept or act upon any saying or deed that contradicts the Book and Sunnah.”
(Ahkam wa Masail, p. 581)
Expert of Usul al-Fiqh, Hafiz Thanaaullah al-Zahidi, writes:
“Firm adherence to the jurisprudence of a specific jurist with harshness and partisanship, trying to justify his mistakes, and if not possible, insisting on them — and attempting, with undue effort, to weaken correct evidence-based opinions of other jurists.”
(Tayseer al-Usul, p. 328)
Numerous references and statements are provided from Deobandi and Barelvi scholars to show how they consider the Imam’s statement as ultimate proof, even over authentic Hadith and Qur’an verses.
Even when scholars like Imam Shafi'i and Hadith experts act on an authentic narration from Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ḥanafīs refuse to accept such rulings, clinging instead to the statement of Imam Abu Hanifah. Some even openly state:
“We are obligated to follow our Imam, even if the truth and justice are with Imam Shafi’i.”
Statements like:
“The saying of a Mujtahid is equivalent to the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.”
—are presented as proof of how far blind personal Taqlid is taken.
Statements such as:
“The Muqallid only needs the statement of his Imam, not Qur’an or Hadith.”
Or:
“Returning to Hadith is not the role of a Muqallid.”
—reflect a disturbing disconnection from authentic sources of Islam.
When asked about a Hadith which explicitly affirms Fajr Salah being valid before sunrise, the response given was:
“Our Fatwa and practice remain according to Imam’s statement. A Muqallid does not reason from the Four Sources (Adillah Arba’ah); that is for the Mujtahid.”
Fatwas declare:
“Common people have no right to demand proofs or debate religious matters. Their duty is only to ask a Mufti and act accordingly.”
Statements claiming that:
“Jesus (عليه السلام), upon his return, will act according to the Madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifah.”
—are also quoted.
Or:
“Any verse contradicting our jurists’ opinions must be interpreted, considered abrogated, or set aside.”
Shah Waliullah al-Dihlawi warns:
“If you want to see a sample of the Jews, look at today’s corrupt scholars. They are obsessed with the imitation of their predecessors, abandon the clear texts of Qur’an and Sunnah, and cling to the extreme interpretations of favored scholars.”
(Al-Fawz al-Kabir fi Usul al-Tafsir, p. 110)
Fakhruddin al-Razi says:
“I presented to a group of Muqallid jurists several verses from the Book of Allah that contradicted their Madhhab. They neither accepted nor paid any attention to them.”
(Tafsir al-Kabir, Surah Tawbah, Ayah 31, vol. 6, p. 37)
The evidence clearly shows that:
Blind personal Taqlid, wherein the Imam’s statement is treated as superior to Qur’an and Sunnah, is baseless, dangerous, and a cause of deviation.
Such Taqlid leads to ignoring authentic Hadiths, distorting the Qur’an, and undermining Ijma’ — all in the name of loyalty to a fallible jurist.
✦ The scholars of Ahl al-Hadith and Salafiyyah strongly oppose this dangerous form of Taqlid, and they emphasize that only Qur’an and Sunnah are the binding authorities in all matters of Deen.
✿ Famous Categories of Taqlid:
There are two well-known types of Taqlid (unquestioning imitation in religious matters):
① Non-Personal Taqlid (Taqlid Mutlaq):
In this type, the follower (Muqallid) accepts and acts upon the unsupported sayings of someone other than the Prophet ﷺ, without any specification, blindly and thoughtlessly.
Important Clarification:It is absolutely right and valid for an ignorant person to ask a scholar for a ruling. This is not called Taqlid, as has been referenced previously. Some people mistakenly label this as Taqlid due to misunderstanding, but this is incorrect.
For example, when an unlearned individual asks Taqi Usmani Deobandi or Ghulam Rasool Saeedi Barelvi about a matter and acts upon it, no one claims or assumes that the person is a follower of “Taqi Usmani” (i.e., a “Taqi Usmani-ite”) or “Ghulam Rasool” (i.e., a “Ghulam Rasool-ite”).
② Personal Taqlid (Taqlid Shakhsi):
In this type, the follower (Muqallid) specifically and exclusively imitates a single individual other than the Prophet ﷺ, blindly accepting all of his sayings and actions.
Personal Taqlid further divides into two categories:
- Personal imitation of a specific living or deceased individual who is not among the four Imams.
- Strict, uncritical imitation of only one of the four Imams—Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi'i, or Ahmad (رحمهم الله)—in all matters, blindly and thoughtlessly, accepting everything they said or did.
This second type itself has two manifestations:
❀ Claiming to follow only in Ijtihadi matters:
“We follow the Qur’an, Hadith, Ijma’, and Ijtihad. We do not do Taqlid in explicit (text-based) matters. We only follow Imam Abu Hanifah and his established fatwas in Ijtihadi issues. If an opinion of the Imam contradicts Qur’an and Hadith, we abandon it.”
This is the claim of modern Deobandi and Barelvi debaters, such as Yunus Nomani and others.
❀ Following Imam Abu Hanifah in all matters—whether supported by Qur’an and Hadith or not:
Even if the opinion contradicts the Qur’an and Hadith, it is still followed. In some cases, the Book of Allah, Sunnah, and Ijma’ are rejected in favor of a preferred opinion of the Imam.
This is the prevalent practice among the general public and scholars of present-day Deobandi and Barelvi circles.
Danger and Deviation of Blind Personal Taqlid:
All forms of blind, baseless Taqlid are incorrect and invalid, but this second form of Taqlid Shakhsi is particularly dangerous and misguided. This is the very form of Taqlid rejected and opposed by the Ahl al-Hadith and Salafi scholars and masses.
Our teacher, Hafiz Abdul Mannan Noorpoori, defines this type of Taqlid as follows:
“Taqlid is to accept or act upon any saying or deed that contradicts the Book and Sunnah.”
(Ahkam wa Masail, p. 581)
Expert of Usul al-Fiqh, Hafiz Thanaaullah al-Zahidi, writes:
“Firm adherence to the jurisprudence of a specific jurist with harshness and partisanship, trying to justify his mistakes, and if not possible, insisting on them — and attempting, with undue effort, to weaken correct evidence-based opinions of other jurists.”
(Tayseer al-Usul, p. 328)
Examples of Blind Personal Taqlid in Practice:
Numerous references and statements are provided from Deobandi and Barelvi scholars to show how they consider the Imam’s statement as ultimate proof, even over authentic Hadith and Qur’an verses.
❖ Refusing a Strong Hadith in Favor of the Imam’s Opinion:
Even when scholars like Imam Shafi'i and Hadith experts act on an authentic narration from Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ḥanafīs refuse to accept such rulings, clinging instead to the statement of Imam Abu Hanifah. Some even openly state:
“We are obligated to follow our Imam, even if the truth and justice are with Imam Shafi’i.”
❖ Claiming a Mujtahid’s Saying is Equal to the Prophet ﷺ’s Saying:
Statements like:
“The saying of a Mujtahid is equivalent to the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.”
—are presented as proof of how far blind personal Taqlid is taken.
❖ Fatwas That Dismiss Evidence from Qur’an and Sunnah:
Statements such as:
“The Muqallid only needs the statement of his Imam, not Qur’an or Hadith.”
Or:
“Returning to Hadith is not the role of a Muqallid.”
—reflect a disturbing disconnection from authentic sources of Islam.
❖ Rejecting a Clear Hadith Regarding Fajr Salah:
When asked about a Hadith which explicitly affirms Fajr Salah being valid before sunrise, the response given was:
“Our Fatwa and practice remain according to Imam’s statement. A Muqallid does not reason from the Four Sources (Adillah Arba’ah); that is for the Mujtahid.”
❖ Disallowing General Muslims to Seek Evidence:
Fatwas declare:
“Common people have no right to demand proofs or debate religious matters. Their duty is only to ask a Mufti and act accordingly.”
❖ Theological Extremes:
Statements claiming that:
“Jesus (عليه السلام), upon his return, will act according to the Madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifah.”
—are also quoted.
Or:
“Any verse contradicting our jurists’ opinions must be interpreted, considered abrogated, or set aside.”
Shah Waliullah al-Dihlawi warns:
“If you want to see a sample of the Jews, look at today’s corrupt scholars. They are obsessed with the imitation of their predecessors, abandon the clear texts of Qur’an and Sunnah, and cling to the extreme interpretations of favored scholars.”
(Al-Fawz al-Kabir fi Usul al-Tafsir, p. 110)
Fakhruddin al-Razi says:
“I presented to a group of Muqallid jurists several verses from the Book of Allah that contradicted their Madhhab. They neither accepted nor paid any attention to them.”
(Tafsir al-Kabir, Surah Tawbah, Ayah 31, vol. 6, p. 37)
Conclusion:
The evidence clearly shows that:
Blind personal Taqlid, wherein the Imam’s statement is treated as superior to Qur’an and Sunnah, is baseless, dangerous, and a cause of deviation.
Such Taqlid leads to ignoring authentic Hadiths, distorting the Qur’an, and undermining Ijma’ — all in the name of loyalty to a fallible jurist.
✦ The scholars of Ahl al-Hadith and Salafiyyah strongly oppose this dangerous form of Taqlid, and they emphasize that only Qur’an and Sunnah are the binding authorities in all matters of Deen.
