Contents > Chapter 12: The Deobandi’s Understanding of Taqleed > The Ruling on Taqleed is dependant upon the Situation


 

The Ruling on Taqleed is dependant upon the Situation

There are many statements from the Salaf regarding the permissibility of Taqleed. This Taqleed refers to the practice of asking the scholars, as explained earlier, and not the blind-adherence to Madhhabs mixed with deviant beliefs. As a general rule, the common people have to refer to those who have the knowledge of the religion, to ask for their verdicts and act upon them even if they do not completely understand the proofs behind it. This is the preferable option as compared to the totally undesirable way for the common man to do as he pleases. But in nations where the overwhelming majority of ‘Muslim’ institutions and their leaders are callers to the gates of the Hell-Fire, and those who follow the Book and the Sunnah as was understood by the Sahabah are few, the statement that “Taqleed is permissible” – without specifying its prohibited types, will give the common people a pretext to stick to their way of Shirk and Bidah [and this was never the intention of those who held Taqleed to be permissible.]

 

Firstly, in order to do the Taqleed of the Imams one needs to find a scholar who follows Imam Abu Haneefah or Imam Shafi’ee in Aqeedah, Fiqh and all other principles of the religion. But this is an extinct species. Now you find someone highly respected by the people, who is an authority in Hanafee Fiqh and defends his Madhhab even if he has to lie about the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam). At the same time, he believes that, “The One who was Istawa upon the Throne as Allah, has descended to the earth as Mustafa (Allah’s Messenger)”. He believes that Allah slipped and almost fell into the Hell-Fire, had Abdul Qadir al-Jilanee not been there to save Him. That Allah is powerless, and has given his jurisdiction to the Messenger and the Sufi Saints. (Na’odhu billahi min dhaalik)

 

Then they are those who claim to be Muqallids of the Imams, but only follow them in Fiqh. They invent their own solutions to bring the Muslim Nation together and criticize certain Sahabah just to appease the Shiites. They formulate and innovate principles with regards to Hadeeth, and then reject those Hadeeth that they find oppose their demented minds. They uphold the Fiqh of Salaah, but undermine the authority and importance of the Sunnah.

 

Then there are the Deobandis and the Jamaat Tableegh and we have seen their beliefs and their conditional Taqleed. We have not touched at the undocumented actions of the Jamaat Tableegh at all in this book. And these actions, which include taking pride in ignorance, widespread and approved carelessness in quoting the Hadeeth, limiting the religion only to a few aspects, idolizing the Deobandi Shaikhs, unparallel devotion to the Fazaail-e-Aamaal and exaggeration in the virtues of their ‘Jamaat’, its elders and its methodology.

 

Then, there are those who strongly oppose the abandoning of Madhhabs, but say that the Qur’aan is enough and the Hadeeth is nothing more than corrupt history.

 

Then there are the modernist Hanafees, who reject the miracles of the Messengers and the Karamat of the Awliya. They change the meaning of the Qur’aanic verses to suit their beliefs and try in vain to reconcile between the Islamic Concept of Creation and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

 

Then there are sects and sub-sects, and all of them claim Taqleed of the Imams and in reality call the people to their own Taqleed.