Imitation (Taqlid)
a. Man should exert himself and strive to deduce rules from its valid sources, if being competent for this.
b. Or either he can take precaution in all of his acts if it be in his capacity.
c. Or otherwise he should imitate a mujtahid possessing full qualifications, on condition that he (mujtahid) be: alive, sane, just, knowledgeable, and who safeguards his soul, takes care of his Din, opposes his desires, and obeys the commands of his Lord.
Ijtihàd in the sub-laws being a kifà’i obligation on all the Muslims, when any full-qualified one performs it, other Muslims will be exempted from it, and it is permissible for them to imitate him and refer to him regarding branches of religion. Because the position of ijtihàd can never be attained so easily, or be accessible for all people, but rather requires abundance of time, sciences, knowledge and capability, the characteristics that can never be possessed but only by whoever toiling and striving hard, spending his life in investigation and seeking knowledge.
Ijtihàd can never be acquired and attained but only by that who is lord of rare good fortune.
The Prophet (S) said:
“When Allah intends good for anyone, He shall make him learned in religion.”
There is no difference between this opinion of the Shi’ah and that of the Sunnah, except in respect of the condition of the mujtahid’s being alive.
But the manifest disagreement between them lies in applying taqlid. The Shi’ah believe that the qualified mujtahid being the viceroy of the (12th) Imam (A) during his occultation, and he shall be the ruler and absolute chief, entitled to whatever be in the capacity of the Imam, in settling the disputes regarding all issues and judging among people, and that who contradicts him is contradicting the Imam.
The qualified mujtahid, in the perspective of the Shi’ah, is not only a reference (marji‘) to be referred to in cases of giving verdicts, but also he enjoys all-inclusive wilàyah (guardianship) over his imitators, who refer to him in respect of rules (ahkàm), settling all the disputes and differences among them in judicial matters, handing him the zakàt and khums of their properties and funds, to dispose of them as ordained in the Shari‘ah, on behalf of the Imam of Time (peace be upon him).
While, the mujtahid does not enjoy this position in the perspective of Ahl al-Sunnah, who refer in the jurispru-
dential questions to one of the four imàms, leaders of the schools of thought (madhàhib): Abu Hanifah, Màlik, al-Shàfi‘i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The contemporary Sunnis may not abide by imitating anyone of these four in particular, as they may take the rules for some of their questions from one of them and some others from another one, according to what their needs necessitate, as practised by Sayyid Sàbiq who composed a fiqh derived from the four leaders.
And since the Sunnis believe that blessing lies in their disagreement, so the Màliki is entitled, for instance, to refer to Abu Hanifah when finding near him the solution for the problem he has, that may not be found near Màlik.
I will cite an example to demonstrate for the reader so as to be able to conceive the meaning.
In Tunisia (during the epoch of judicial courts) there was a mature girl who fell in love with some man and intended to get married to him. But her father refused to marry her to that youth, for a reason God knows alone. Then the girl fled her father’s house and got married to that young man, without taking the permission of her father. The father lodged a suit against that marriage.
When the girl and her husband were summoned and brought before the judge, he asked her about the cause behind her escaping from her father’s house, and getting married without the permission of her guardian (wali). She replied: Sir, I am twenty-five years old, and I desired
to marry this man according to the Sunnah of Allah and His Messenger; and since my father intends to marry me to someone I dislike, so I married in accordance with the opinion of Abu Hanifah, who gives me the right to marry the one I love, as I am full-grown (adult).
The judge (who himself narrated this story to me) — may God’s mercy be upon him — says: “When we considered and investigated the case, we found her claim to be right, and I think that one of the well-aware ‘ulamà’ has taught her what to say”. The judge says: Then I rebutted the father’s complaint and endorsed the marriage (judged it to be correct). So the father departed the court being at loss, reiterating these words: “The she-dog became Hanafi”, i..e his daughter has abandoned Màlik and followed Abu Hanifah, and the word “she-dog” (kalbah) implies an insult to his daughter, from whom he has disowned later on.
The issue stems from the difference in the ijtihàd of the schools. As Màlik is of the opinion that the marriage of the maiden girl (bikr) can never be valid but only with the permission of her guardian (wali), and even when she be a thayyib (that is, a girl who has had sexual intercourse), he will be her partner in marriage, and she is not allowed to decide to marry anyone without his consent. Whereas Abu Hanifah holds that the sane, grown-up female is competent to choose her husband and to contract marriage, irrrespective of being a maiden or a thayyib.
So this fiqhi issue has caused to separate between the father and his daughter, to the extent that he declared his disavowal of her. Very often fathers used to disown of their daughters for several reasons, one of which being to flee home with the man with whom she likes to get married. This sort of disowning entails inconvenient consequences, as the father most often may rsort to deprive his daughter from her right to inherit him, so as the girl remaining to be an enemy to her brothers who, in turn, would disown their sister who brought them shame.
Hence the truth is not as claimed by Ahl al-Sunnah that blessing (rahmah) lies in their disagreement, or at the least, blessing can never be implied in all the controversial matters.
Moreover, there is another point of dispute between them, which is imitation of the dead mujtahid (taqlid al-mayyit). The Sunnis imitate imàms who died several centuries ago, closing the door of ijtihàd since that era, and all the ‘ulamà’ succeeding them would be content with the expositions (shuruh), and whatever written in poetry and prose from the fiqh of the four schools of thought. Then some of the contemporary ‘ulamà’ began to call for opening the doors and restoration the practice of ijtihàd, due to what the time requirements necessitating, and to find solutions for new questions and issues that were unknown during the lifetime of the four imàms (leaders of Sunni schools).
Whereas the Shi’ah never permit (anyone) to imitate the dead mujtahid (for the first time), referring in all their rules to the alive mujtahid possessing all the necessary qualifications we mentioned previously, during the occultation of the Infallible Imam, who charged them to refer to the equitable ‘ulamà’ in the time of his occultation (ghaybah) till his reappearance.
The Sunni Màliki, for instance, may declare: This thing is lawful (halàl) and that thing is forbidden (haràm) according to the belife of al-’Imàm Màlik, who is dead more than twelve centuries ago. The same claim is uttered by the followers of the Hanafi, Shàfi‘i and Hanbali schools, since these four leaders lived contemporaneously, with each one of them learning under the hand of the other. Besides, the follower of any of the Sunni schools never believes in the infallibility of these four leaders (imàms), who never claimed this trait for themselves, but believing in the possibility to err and to be correct. Besides, they claim that they are worth rewarding in all their exertions of opinion (ijtihàdat), deserving two rewards in case of being right, and one reward in case of being wrong.
While the Imàmi Shi’i, for instance, has two stages in taqlid (imitation):
First Stage: Which being during the lifetime of the Twelve Imams, that extended for almost three and a half centuries. During that epoch, every follower of the Shi’i school was imitating the Infallible Imam, who never
speaks out of his opinion or ijtihàd, but through knowledge and narrations he inherited from his grandfather (S), saying regarding any issue: My father has reported from my grandfather, from Gabriel, from Allah, the Glorified and Mighty.
Second Stage: Which represents the time of occultation that extended up to the present time. Every Shi’i says: This thing is halàl and that one is haràm according to the opinion held by al-Sayyid al-Khu’i or al-Sayyid al-Khumayni, for instance, who both being alive, and their opinion never exceeds striving (ijtihàd) in deducing the laws from the texts of the Qur’àn and Prophetic Sunnah, depending on the traditions of Ahl al-Bayt Imams at first, and after them the trustees among the Companions. The reason behind their discussing the traditions of Ahl al-Bayt Imams at first, lies in the fact that these Imams refuse the use of opinion in respect of Shari‘ah (Islamic Law), observing: There is nothing but a judgement was revealed regarding it by Allah. When we lack the law (hukm) on any issue, this never means that it is neglected by Allah, the Glorified, but our inadequacy and ignorance prevented us from being able to recognize the hukm (law) of the issue. Ignorance of anything and inability to realize it can never be an evidence indicating its non-existence, as stated by Allah, the Glorified in the holy Qur’àn:
“We have not neglected in the Book (the Qur’àn) anything ....” (6:38)
Doctrines with which
Ahl al-Sunnah Revile
the Shi‘ah
So no wonder to see them slandering and extremely disgracing everyone following him, to the extent that anyone of them preferred to be called a Jew than to be called a Shi’i. And their followers kept on this practice in every age and region, with the Shi’i being subject to be reviled all the time by Ahl al-Sunnah, since he contradicts them in their beliefs and is regarded a renegade against their company. They used to calumniate him with all sorts of slanders, charging him with all accusations, calling him with numerous (bad) nicknames, and contradicting him in all his sayings and acts.
Some of the well-known Sunni ‘ulamà’ say: “Putting on the finger-ring in the right hand being a Prophetic sunnah
(habit), but it should be abandoned since the Shi‘ah made out of it a motto for them.206
Further, Hujjatul Islam Abu Hàmid al-Ghazzàli says: Flattening the graves is legitimately prescribed by Islam, but when the Rufiddah (Shi‘ah) made it a motto for them we substituted it with tasnim (making large humps).
Also Ibn Taymiyyah, who is labelled by some of them with the epithet al-Muslih al-Mujaddid (the Reviving Reformer), says: Hence, several fuqahà’ embarked on abandoning some of the recommended acts (mustahabbàt), when noticing that they were turned to a motto for the Shi’ah. Though abandoning these acts is not obligatory, but demonstrating these acts would mean resembling them (the Shi‘ah), so as no one would distinguish between the Sunni and the Ràfidi, and the convenience in being distinguished from them for the sake of forsaking and contradicting them is greater than the convenience implied in the recommended act.207
When asked about the way of lowering the turban, al-HàfiZ al-‘Iraqi said: I have never come across any evidence indicating the specification of the right side, but only in an unauthentic (da‘if) hadith reported by al-Tabarràni. And as estimated through his prophecy, it might be that he used to let it down on the right side turning it then to the left as practised by some. But since this practice turned to be a distinguishing motto for the
Imàmiyyah, so it should be abandoned and left in order to evade being resembled to them.208
sGlorified is Allah! And there is neither might nor power but in God! Everyone can observe clearly how the bigotry allows these so-called ‘ulamà’ to contradict the Prophet’s Sunnah, while the Shi’ah have adhered to those sunan (precepts) till becoming a motto for them. Furthermore they see no interdiction in confessing this practice frankly. Praise belongs to Allah Who manifested the truth to everyone having foresight and sincerely seeking for truth. Praise be Allah’s Who demonstrated to us that the true followers of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah being thet Shi’ah as you yourselves testified! As you gave witness against yourselves that you neglected the Messenger’s Sunnah in purpose, so as to contradict the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt and their devoted Shi‘ah, and followed the sunnah of Mu‘àwiyah ibn Abi Sufyàn, as testified by al-’Imàm al-Zamakhshari when proving that the first to put on a ring in the left hand, contrary to the Prophetic Sunnah, was Mu‘àwiyah ibn Abi Sufyàn.209
You also followed the sunnah of ‘Umar in his innovation of al-tarawih prayers, contrary to the Prophetic Sunnah that commanded the Muslims to perform the supererogatory prayers (nàfilah) by ones (furàdà) at home, not congregationally, as by al-Bukhàri in his Sahih,210 and as confessed by ‘Umar himself of its being a bid‘ah (heresy)211 innovated by him, without being performed by
him since he never believed in it. It is reported by al-Bukhàri, from ‘Abd al-Rahmàn ibn ‘Abd al-Qàri, that he said: I went out with ‘Umar ibn al-Khattàb, during one of the nights of the Month of Ramadàn the mosque, when we noticed people separated into groups, with some man praying alone once and also praying as a leader (imàm) being followed by a multitude of people. Thereat ‘Umar said: I opine that gathering all these people under one reciter (qàri’), will be more proper and better. Then he (‘Umar) gathered them to follow Ubayy ibn Ka’b (in performing supererogatory prayers). ‘Abd al-Rahmàn added: The next night I went out with him (‘Umar), and we found people perform their prayers through following their reciter (leader), when ‘Umar said: What a good bid‘ah (heresy) is this! ....212
What arouses our wonder in this respect is considering it a bounty (ni‘mah) after it was forbidden by the Messenger? That was when they exclaimed loudly, after gathering in front of the door of his house (the Prophet’s) asking him to lead them in performing the nàfilah prayer of the Month of Ramadàn. He (S) went out, furious and angry, saying to them:
“The making of your hands is still pushing you till I thought it to be prescribed on you. You have to abide by performing prayers (nàfilah) in your houses, as the best prayer of man being in his house, except the prescribed (obligatory) prayers.”213
Further, you followed the sunnah of ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn, which calls for completing the prayers during travel (four-rak‘ah prayers), contrary to the Sunnah of the Messenger (S) who used to perform it (travel prayer) in two rak‘ahs (qasr).214
Had I intended to enumerate all the rules in which you contradicted the Messenger’s Sunnah, it would need a separate book, but we suffice with your witness through what you confessed against yourselves. Sufficient is also your testimony through your confession that the Rafidite Shi’ah have taken the Prophet’s Sunnah as a motto for them.
After all these evidences, will there remain any reason to admit the ignorants claiming that the Shi‘ah have followed ‘Ali ibn Abi Tàlib, while Ahl al-Sunnah have followed the Messenger of Allah? Do these people want to prove that ‘Ali contradicted the Messenger of Allah, and invented a new religion? What a greatly slandering word coming out from their mouths! ‘Ali is verily the very incarnation, interpreter and guardian of the Prophetic Sunnah, and in his regard the Messenger of Allah (S) said:
“The position ‘Ali has to me is the same that I have to my Lord.”215
That is, in the same way as Muhammad (S) being the only one propagating on behalf of his Lord, so also is ‘Ali, being alone in propagating on behalf of the Messenger of Allah. But the fault of ‘Ali lies in the fact that he never
acknowledged the caliphate of those predecessors, and the fault of his followers (Shi’ah) being in their following his guide in refusing to submit and be under the caliphate of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmàn, the reason why they were called Rawafid.
If these people (Ahl al-Sunnah) deny the (Prophetic) Sunnah’s being followed by the Shi’ah’s beliefs and sayings, it stems from two reasons: The first being the animosity flared up by the Umayyad rulers through spreading falsities and publicities, and composing fabricated narrations.
The second reason being that the Shi’ah’s doctrines contradict their (Sunnah’s) opinions in supporting the caliphs and confirming their blunders and ijtihàdat (exertions of opinion) against the texts (nusus), particularly the Umayyad rulers, at the head of whom being Mu‘àwiyah ibn AbiSufyàn.
Hence, every truth-seeker, following up the matter, will find out that the dispute between the Shi’ah and Ahl al-Sunnah originated, in fact, since the Saqifah Day, and exacerbated afterwards, and every dispute erupted after it is verily dependent on and stemmed from it. The best evidence for this being that the beliefs and creeds with which Ahl al-Sunnah vilify their brethren the Shi’ah, are firmly relevant with and ramifying from the issue of caliphate, like the number of the Imams, the text in determining the Imam, infallibility, the Imams’ knoweldge, the badà’,
taqiyyah (dissimulation), and the Promised al-Mahdi, beside other beliefs.
Investigating the claims of the two parties in an unprejudiced way, we will never see any long distance between their beliefs, finding no justification for this exaggeration and vilification. As when you read the books of the Sunnah in which they revile the Shi’ah, you will imagine that the Shi’ah have contradicted Islam, and violated its principles and legislations, inventing another religion.
While any equitable researcher will find in the Shi’ah’s doctrines, a firm origin in the Qur’àn and Sunnah, and even in the books of those contracting them in these doctrines and vilifying them with.
Moreover, those doctrines never contain or imply anything contrary to reason ('aql), or narration (naql) or morals. For proving to you, dear reader, the veracity of my claims, I will review with you those doctrines (‘aqà’id).
