Title: Taqleed & the Opinions Expressed at 'Understanding Islam' Question: From the articles at your website and the understanding-islam website, I have gotten this impression that blind following is discouraged because the arguments against this include the one that says that we should only follow what the original source says, that is the Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and not follow any other scholar no matter how pious and honest and extraordinary intelligent he may be, because he would still be prone to error since he would always remain human. Only the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and no other human being is free from error, and thats because he was the prophet of Islam. My question is that, firstly, I agree with your logic, but at the same time, I would ask, for instance if we take Imam Abu Hanifah (or for that matter any other Imam), people used to and still are at a consensus that he was an extremely learned and extraordinary scholar. And people of his time, and the times after that are of the opinion that his rulings are something that should be taken without question not because these judgements and rulings of his were from him only, but because he was learned and capable enough ( Mujtahid ) to derive the correct rulings ( ijtihad ) from the Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). So in essence, following him (or any one of the four imams), is actually equivalent to following the Quran and the Sunnah . These four imams have been tried and tested to be correct. And since no other person after the time of these four imams is thought to be capable enough to derive the correct ruling from the original source, so the safest way would be to blindly follow any of the four imams. I hope you get what I am trying to say. Anyway, in conclusion therefore, I would say that following any of the four imams would be the best option and the safest way to salvation as opposed to following any other scholar or doing your own ijtihaad (because not everyone can do ijtihad ). Correct??? Jazaakumullah Khair Atif Aziz Pakistan Answer: It would not be out of place to give a historical background before answering your question. Muslims before the 4th century used a methodology very different from our present day Muslims. In those times, they used to consult all those scholars about whose religious knowledge and piety they had developed a trust. They were concerned neither with a scholar's juristic affiliations nor with his/her inclination towards a particular Imam. Shah Wali Ullah has quoted Ibn-e-Hamam while making the same point: Sometimes they asked one scholar and sometimes another. They were not restricted to a specific scholar. The scholars too were markedly different from today's scholars. There were broadly of two types. Those who were Mujtahids who gave verdicts about religious issues in the light of their knowledge and wisdom, based on the Quran and Sunnah . It was not that they blindly accepted whatever was pronounced by their predecessors. Qazi Abu Yousaf and Imam Muhammad were Imam Abu Hanifa's disciples. But this didn't stop them from differing from his opinions. In fact, they disagreed with Imam Abu Hanifa to such an extent that if all of their differences are gathered together, a Fiqh separate from that of Imam Abu Hanifa can be compiled. The second type of scholars were those who could not gather all the requisites of Ijtihad in them. These scholars usually kept into consideration the opinions of a particular Imam but this did not mean that they deemed, whatever was written in a few books, a revealed text. Rather they reflected on these issues and tried to understand them in the light of their detailed arguments. Then, whatever was based on sound arguments was accepted and whatever was tenuous in their estimation was held debatable. At times they presented their own Ijtihad which was not considered an alteration in religion or "free thinking". You write: I would ask, for instance if we take Imam Abu Hanifah (or for that matter any other Imam), people used to and still are at a consensus that he was an extremely learned and extraordinary scholar. And people of his time, and the times after that are of the opinion that his rulings are something that should be taken without question not because these judgments and rulings of his were from him only, but because he was learned and capable enough ( Mujtahid ) to derive the correct rulings ( ijtihad ) from the Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). As you can see from the above, the assertion that people of the time and the time after that of Imam Abu Hanifa, or of any other Imam, are of the opinion that his rulings should be taken without question does not stand historical inquiry. There is no denying the fact that the respected classical scholars of Islam were the most capable, knowledgeable and pious people. But I am sure you would agree that knowledge, competence and piety in religious matters can in no way be considered synonymous with infallibility, keeping aside the prophets of Allah. The statement that every learned, intelligent and pious person is always right is obviously not tenable. Even the best among us can sometime make grave errors of judgment and understanding. You further write: So in essence, following him (or any one of the four imams), is actually equivalent to following the Quran and the Sunnah. In my opinion, following any one of the four respected jurists or any other scholar of Islam is equivalent to following the understanding of Quran and Sunnah of that particular jurist or scholar. The assertion that no other person after the respected four jurists of Islam is capable enough to derive the correct ruling from the original sources is at best an unsubstantiated claim. Does the Quran say that it is only these four infallible men whose religious pronouncements were divine words incarnate? Or does it require us to put a moratorium on the process of learning, understanding, probing and deducing from the moment the last of these four jurists went on his heavenly abode? Regards, Razi Allah January 5, 2003