Usul-Al-Fiqh Made Easy (Part 24) - Taqleed

Alhamdulillah, we now arrive at the final part of our journey through Usool al-Fiqh. Having explored the ways of al-Istinbaat according to the Jumhoor and the Hanafiyyah, the principles of Ijtihaad and the ranks of Mujtahideen, we now turn to the concluding discussion: Taqleed — the practice of following others in religious matters without direct evidence.

This topic serves as the natural conclusion to the study of Ijtihaad, for it deals with those who are unable to perform Ijtihaad themselves, and how they relate to the scholars who do. It addresses the delicate balance between reliance on qualified authority and blind adherence.

In this final part, we will study the linguistic and technical definitions of Taqleed, the different scholarly perspectives surrounding it, its types, and the distinction between Taqleed and Ittiba. We will also examine the prohibition of blind following as expressed in the Qur’an, Sunnah, and statements of the early generations, and conclude with a reflection on the historical development of Tamazhub (the institutionalization of Madhahib) and its implications.

Taqleed

The term Taqleed linguistically means placing something around the neck, which encircles the neck.

Technical meaning:
In the terminology of the Fuqaha, Taqleed refers to accepting the statement of others (other than the Prophet) without evidence. Based on this, accepting the saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and Ijmaa (consensus) is not considered Taqleed.
(Rawdah al-Nadhir of Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali 2/381, al-Taḥreer fee Usool al-fiqh of Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi 3/453).

Furthermore, a layman asking from a Mufti, or a Qadhi making judgment based on testimony of witnesses, does not fall under the category of Taqleed.

References:

• From Shafi book on Usool al-Fiqh: (al-Ihkaam of al-Aamidi 4/221)
• From Maliki book on Usool al-Fiqh: (Muntaha al-Wusool of Ibn Haajib p.218)
• From Hanafi book on Usool al-Fiqh: (Musallam ath-Thaboot p.289)

The Broader Use of the Word “Taqleed”

Interestingly, some scholars have used the word “Taqleed” even when referring to following the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).

Example 1:
Al-Imam al-Tahawi has used the word “Taqleed” to follow Hadith.
(Sharh Maani al-Athaar 4/3)

Example 2:
Imam al-Shafi said:

“Allah has not made Taqleed of anyone permissible after Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).”
(Mukhtasar al-Muzani 2/628)

The Shafiee scholars explained that he did not mean Taqleed in its technical, terminological sense. Rather, he was referring to accepting the statements of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) without questioning them.

(Bahr ul Madhab of Abdul Wahid al-Ruyani (6/271))

Scholarly Views on Taqleed by Laymen (a common man)

There exists a clear discussion among scholars regarding whether Taqleed applies to the layman or only to scholars.

Example 1:
Khateeb al-Baghdadi said:

“Taqleed is allowed for the layman who does not know Ahkaam al-Shariyyah (Rulings of Islamic law). It is allowed for him to make Taqleed of a scholar. Because Allah says:
Ask the people (having the knowledge) of the Reminder, if you do not know (Quran 16:43).”
(Al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih of Khateeb al-Baghdadi 2/68).

However, in the same book he also warned:

“It is not allowed to do taqleed of anyone to leave established Sunnah of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).”
(Al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih of Khateeb al-Baghdadi 2/68).

Example 2:
Ibn Taymiyyah said:

“Taqleed is permissible for those who are incapable of doing Ijtihaad.”
(Majmoo al-Fatawa 20/204).

He further added:

“As for a person who knows the statement of one scholar and his evidence, without the statement of other scholar and his evidence, then he is from the generality of the muqallideen. He isn’t from the scholars who can do tarjeeh and falsify.”
(Majmoo al-Fatawa 35/233).

Thus, while some scholars have termed a layman’s seeking of rulings from scholars as “Taqleed,” others have clarified that technically it does not fall under this category.

Laymen Asking Scholar Is Not Taqleed

According to one group of scholars — those who maintain that Taqleed is Haraam in general for everyone — the very act of following someone’s statement without proof is invalid, regardless of who does it.

However, they clarify that if a layman seeks a fatwa from a scholar who issues it based on evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah, this act does not fall under Taqleed at all. Rather, it is considered Ittiba’ (following evidence), because the layman’s reliance is upon the proof itself, not the person.

On the other hand, another group of scholars define Taqleed more broadly than how it is defined in the classical books of Usool al-Fiqh. They expanded its meaning to include even the layman’s act of asking scholars for rulings. Based on this broader usage, they divided Taqleed into two categories to differentiate between the two:

1. Permissible Taqleed
2. Prohibited Taqleed

Difference between “Taqleed” and “al-Ittiba”

The scholars have differentiated between Taqleed (blind following) and Ittiba (following with knowledge).

Those Who Differentiate Between Taqleed and Ittiba

Many scholars have explicitly drawn a line between Taqleed and Ittiba.

1. Ibn Abee al-Izz al-Hanafi wrote a book called “al-Ittibah” and made differentiation. (al-Ittiba p 23)
2. Ibn Abdul Barr had a chapter: “Fasaad of Taqleed and its negation and difference between Taqleed and ittiba”
   (Jami Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadhlihi 2/109)
3. Ibn al-Qayyim and others. (Alam al-Muwaqqieen 2/137)
4. Khwaiz Mandad Maliki said:

“Taqlid refers to following someone's statement without having evidence for it. This is prohibited in the Shariah. Instead, Ittiba (following/obeying) is based on evidence.”
(Alam al-Muwaqqieen 2/137).

5. Ahmad bin Hanbal differentiated and defined Ittiba as:

“Someone who follows what is reported from Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), Sahabah and those who followed them.”
(Masail Ahmad riwayah Abu Dawood no. 1789)
He also said:
“Do not make my Taqleed, nor make Taqleed of Malik, nor Shafiee or Thawri or Awzai.”
(Alam al-Muwaqqieen 2/139)

Those Who Do Not Differentiate Between Taqleed and Ittiba

On the other hand, some scholars — mainly the followers of Madhaahib — included Ittiba under the category of Taqleed, whether the scholar’s opinion was based on textual evidence (Nusoos) or analogy (Qiyas).

Among those who held this view are:

• al-Juwayni al-Shafi in Takhees fee Usool al-Fiqh (3/425)
• Alauddin Al-Samarqandi al-Hanafi in Meezan al-Usool (2/950)
• Mahmood al-Lamshi in Kitab fee Usool al-Fiqh p.200
• Al-Nasafi al-Hanafi in Kashf al-Asraar (2/172-173)
• Imam Shatibi al-Maliki (al-Itisaam 1/276, 2/403-405) and others.

Imam Saleh al-Fulani on Attitude of Muqallid and Muttabi

Imam Saleh al-Fulani stated that the "muqallid" (one who blindly follows) does not inquire about Allah and His Messenger's decision or judgment. Instead, the muqallid asks about the opinion (madhhab) of their imam, and even if it becomes apparent that the imam's madhhab contradicts the Quran and Sunnah, the muqallid would not revert back to the Quran and Sunnah.

In contrast, the "mutabi'" (one who follows) is the one who asks about Allah and His Messenger's decision and judgment, without inquiring about the opinions or madhhabs of others. If the mutabi' encounters a new issue where they are unsure of the ruling, it is not mandatory for them to ask the same scholar they consulted previously. Rather, they may ask any scholar they meet, and they are not obligated to adhere solely to the first opinion they received.

The mutabi' does not blindly advocate for the first opinion given, to the extent that if they realize the opinion contradicts the Quran and Sunnah, they would disregard and abandon it.

This is the difference between the taqlid (blind following) that later generations adhered to, and the ittiba' (following with understanding) that the righteous predecessors practiced.
(Eeqadh al-Himam wa al-Absar p 40-41)

Types of Taqleed

Scholars have also categorized Taqleed itself into types, distinguishing between its general and specific forms.

Prohibition of Taqleed

After understanding what Taqleed means and how scholars viewed its types and limitations, it is essential to turn to the question of its ruling in Shariah. The Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijmaa, and statements of the Sahabah all clearly show that blind following is prohibited when it contradicts knowledge and evidence.

Quran

Allah says:

“And do not follow a thing about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart - about all those [one] will be questioned.”
(Quran 17:36)

The scholars have made istidlal from the above verse as a prohibition against Taqleed.

1. Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali also cited this verse in his prohibition against Taqleed.
   (Al-Mustasfa min Ilm al-Usool 2/389)
   
2. Imam Ibn al-Qayyim used this very verse to refute Taqleed and commented:

“The people of knowledge have unanimously agreed that Taqleed is not Ilm (Knowledge).”
(Alaam al-Muwaqqieen 3/13)

Allah also says:

“They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allah.”
(Quran 9:31)

This verse too has been cited by many classical scholars as a proof against blind imitation in religion.

Following scholars have made istidlal from this ayah on the prohibition of Taqleed:

1. Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkaam fee Usool al-Ahkaam (6/283)
2. Ibn Abdul Barr in Jami Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadhlihi (2/109)
3. Khateeb al-Baghdadi in Al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih (2/66)
4. Ibn al-Qayyim, after mentioning this ayah, commented that scholars have always used it as a refutation against Taqleed and Kufr, and the fact that those condemned in the verse still used it did not prevent its validity.
   (Alaam al-Muwaqqieen 3/19)

Hadith

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) forewarned about the dangers of those who give rulings without knowledge:

“Then there will remain ignorant people who, when consulted, will give verdicts according to their opinions whereby they will mislead others and go astray.”
(Saheeh al-Bukhari 7307)

This Hadith serves as a direct warning against issuing or accepting rulings based purely on opinion.

Ijmaa (Consensus)

In addition to Qur’an and Hadith, there is a scholarly consensus supporting the prohibition of blind imitation.

1. Jalal al-Deen al-Suyooti also quoted an ijmaa on prohibition of Taqleed in his book:
   (al-Radd Ala Man Akhlad Ila al-Ard wa jahala an al-Ijtihaad fi kulli Asrin Fardh p.131–132)
2. Ibn Hazm said:

“There is ijmaa of all Sahabah and ijmaa of all Tabieen on prohibition of Taqleed.”
(al-Nubdha al-kafiya fee usool aḥkam al-deen p.71)

Statements of Sahabah

Muadh bin Jabal said:

“Regarding the mistake of a Aalim, even if he is on guidance, don’t make taqleed of him in Deen (religion).”
(Kitab al-Zuhd of Wakee bin Jarrah no.71 with an authentic chain of narration)

Abdullah bin Masood said:

“Do not make taqleed of people in your Deen (religion). If you refuse (to accept this advice), then follow those who have passed away, not the living.”
(Sunan al-Kubra 2/10 with an authentic chain of narration)

The statements of these noble Companions make it clear that religious adherence must be based on revelation and evidence—not personalities or inherited opinions.

Tamazhub and Its Origin

The discussion on Taqleed naturally leads to the concept of Tamazhub, or adherence to a particular school of thought.

Definition:
Tamazhub refers to the act of following a specific school of Islamic jurisprudence (madhab). The four most well-known madhahib (plural of madhab) are: Hanafi Madhab, Maliki Madhab, Shafi’ee Madhab, and Hanbali Madhab.

Origin:
Systematic following of Madhahib started in 4th century A.H.

Ibn al-Qayyim said:

“This Bidah started in 4th century A.H, the Qarn condemned in the words of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).”
(Alam al-Muwaqqieen 2/208)

Imam Ibn Hazm said that it started in 4th century A.H.
(Mulakkhas Ibtal al-Qiyas of Ibn Hazm p.52)

Imam al-Suyuti said that it started in 4th century A.H.
(al-Radd Ala Man Akhlad Ila al-Ard wa jahala an al-Ijtihaad fi kulli Asrin Fardh p.133)

Imam al-Shawkani said that the Taqleed of four Madhahib began after Khayr al-Quroon (best generations).
(al-Qawl al-Mufeed fee Adillah al-Ijtihaad wa al-Taqleed p.108)

Madhab or School of Thought: Two Approaches

As the centuries progressed, two distinct approaches emerged among the followers of the madhahib.

Mutamad (Relied Upon or Established) Position

A well-known example explains this concept. The Muʿtamad position among the Shafi’iyyah today is that “Eating camel’s meat does not break wudhoo.”

Yet the authentic Hadith evidence tells a different story.

Evidence from Hadith:
Jabir bin Samura reported:

“A man asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) whether he should perform ablution after (eating) mutton. He (the Messenger of Allah) said: Perform ablution if you so desire, and if you do not wish, do not perform it.
He (again) asked: Should I perform ablution (after eating) camel's flesh?
He said: Yes, perform ablution (after eating) camel's flesh.”
(Saheeh Muslim no.360)

Commentary:
Al-Nawawi said:

“Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaq bin Rahawayh, Yahya bin Yahyaa, Abu Bakr bin al-Mundhir and Ibn Khuzaymah believed that it (eating camel meat) breaks wudhoo; this was also the view favoured by al-Haafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi. It was reported from the scholars of Hadith and from a group of the Sahabah.
The majority responded to this with the hadith of Jabir: the last of the two commands from the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was that there was no need to do wudhoo after eating meat that had been touched by fire. But this hadith is general, whereas the hadith about doing wudhoo after eating camel meat is specific, and a specific ruling takes precedence over a general one.”
(Sharh Muslim (4/49))

Al-Nawawi is from “al-shaykhan” of Madhab, al-Bayhaqi also opposed al-Shafi’s position in Sunan al-Kubra, yet it is not Mutamad.

Thus, although both al-Nawawi and al-Bayhaqi opposed Imam al-Shafi’i’s position based on hadith evidence, the Muʿtamad within the madhhab still remained otherwise—showing how rigid adherence to institutional tradition can override clear textual proof.

Should a Person Follow Madhab?

After understanding how madhhabs developed and how scholars viewed the concept of Muʿtamad positions, the next question arises naturally:
Is it obligatory for a Muslim to follow one specific madhhab?

The answer, as made clear by many leading scholars, is no — neither Allah nor His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ever commanded a Muslim to bind himself to a single jurist or school.

Ibn Taymiyyah stated that if a Muslim faces a mishap or novel event, they should consult the person they believe issues rulings in accordance with Allah's and His Messenger's (صلى الله عليه وسلم) Shareeah, regardless of which madhhab that person belongs to.

He wrote:

“It is not mandatory for any Muslim to do Taqleed of a particular scholar in every matter.
If a person is unable to determine the legislated ruling from sources other than a scholar’s madhab, then following that scholar’s madhab is permissible, but not obligatory for everyone—especially if it becomes possible to obtain Shareeah knowledge through alternative means.
In fact, every Muslim is obligated to fear Allah to the utmost and seek knowledge of what Allah and His Messenger have ordained, so that they may perform the required actions and abstain from the prohibited.”
(Majmoo Fatawaa Ibn Taymiyyah 20/209)

Thus, while temporary reliance on a scholar is allowed for those lacking knowledge, lifelong binding to one imam’s view is neither required nor encouraged in Islam.

Scholarly Consensus Against Binding to One Madhab

Even scholars within the madhahib themselves have clarified that a person is not obliged to remain confined to a single school.

For example:

• Ibn al-Abidin al-Hanafi in Radd al-Mukhtar (1/130), and
• Imam al-Nawawi al-Shafiee in Minhaj al-Talibeen (11/117)

— both affirmed that one may follow any qualified scholar whose opinion aligns with evidence.

For further references on this issue, one may refer to “The Blind Following of Madhabs” by Shaykh Sultan Masoomee, which compiles a number of statements from scholars rejecting rigid adherence.

Examples of Severe Inter-Madhab Enmity

Sadly, as history shows, blind partisanship to madhhabs (taʿassub) did not remain a mere intellectual disagreement. Over time, it produced serious divisions, hostility, and even violence among followers of different schools.

The historian Yaqut al-Hamawi records the state of Isbahan:

“The surrounding areas of Isbahan were plagued by discord and dissension due to the bigotry and partisanship between the Shafi and Hanafi sects. A fierce battle raged for 8 continuous days, with each side overpowering the other and subsequently destroying and demolishing their opponent's houses, burning them without remorse or sorrow. This calamity befell a large group of people in the region.”
(Mujam al-Buldaan 1/209)

Ibn al-Atheer also narrated an incident from the fourth century Hijri, regarding disputes over reciting Bismillah aloud in Salah:

“The Hanbalis were known to severely beat any Shafis they encountered, rendering them unconscious.”
(al-Kamil fee al-Tareekh (11/319))

Muzaffar al-Tusi al-Shafi said:

“If I was the ruler I would take jizyah from the Hanbalis.”
(Miraat al-Zamaan fee Tawareekh al-A’yaan (8/44))

Judge of Damascus, Muhammad bin Moosa al-Hanafi, said:

“If I was the ruler I would take jizyah from the Shafis.”
(Meezan al-Itidaal 4/51-52)

One chief justice from Shafi Madhab said:

“If Allah were to cut the trace of Maliki Madhab, the people would be relieved from it.”
(Intisaar al-Faqeer al-Salik p.297)

Mullah Ali Qari said:

“It is well known among Hanafiyyah, that if Hanafi becomes a Shafi then he is to be punished, but if a Shafi becomes Hanafi then he is given authority.”
(Irshad al-Nuqqad of al-Sanani 1/147)

An Interesting Anecdote on the Madhab of Ahl al-Hadith

To conclude this discussion, the stance of the early Ahl al-Hadith scholars offers a refreshing contrast to the rigid sectarianism of later centuries.

According to the statement of Barakah Al-Hawzi (rahimahullah), there once occurred a debate between him and Abu Al-Hasan Al-Maghazili about which Imam was superior — Imam Malik or Imam al-Shafi’i.

Barakah Al-Hawzi preferred Imam Al-Shafi'i because he followed the Shafi'i Madhhab, while Al-Maghazili preferred Imam Malik as he followed the Maliki Madhhab.

So they went to Abu Muslim Al-Laithi Al-Bukhari to judge between them. Abu Muslim preferred Imam al-Shafi’i, which angered Al-Maghazili. In frustration, he said perhaps Abu Muslim was himself upon the Shafi’i madhhab.

Abu Muslim Al-Laithi replied:

“We are Ashab Al-Hadith (the people of Hadith), we are not bound to any particular Madhhab, but rather the people follow our Madhab.”

(Kitab Sualaat al-Silafi li Khamis Al-Hawzi, no. 113, p.118)

Conclusion

Through this discussion, we understand that Taqleed — when defined as blind following without evidence — has no basis in Islam. The Qur’an, Sunnah, and the practice of the early generations all point to Ittiba’ — following with understanding — as the proper path.

While seeking guidance from scholars is permissible for those unable to derive rulings, it must always be conditional upon evidence from the Book and Sunnah.

With this, we finish the series on Usul Al Fiqh. You can access all articles here

Fiqh - Arriqaaq

ArriqaaqArriqaaq

Please share it with others, and stay tuned for our book on this topic. If you have any questions, you can always message us on instagram

https://www.instagram.com/arriqaaq