Devout followers in the Usooli school of thought adhere to the principle of Taqlid, which is translated as 'imitation' or 'simulation' in matters of religious law. The underlying rationale is that the layperson does not have the adequate qualifications for the complex derivations of religious law. Thus, one must, out of religious necessity, adhere to the rulings of one of the chief jurists living today who are called maraji', or doctors of law. There are inherent problems with this system that go against the Quranic ethos regarding the intellect's supremacy and personal responsibility in all matters of faith and action. Another fundamental problem with the institution of Taqlid is 'choosing' the right jurist to imitate since one of the requirements--as promulgated by the jurists themselves--is imitating a jurist by ascertaining the most knowledgeable among them. The following is a discussion which touches on the issue of the 'most knowledgeable'.
Being the most knowledgeable [in jurisprudence] is not on account of extensive discursive study and acquired learning so long as the jurist does not possess an inward criteria to understand the spirit of the law and to know the limits, scope and details of each ruling.
It may be that such detailed inquiry is void of the heart’s light and guidance and is compromised by doubt and misgivings, or drives a person further into doubt. Even if the inquiry renders correct results insofar as it concords with an academic theoretical framework and its principles, it still may not accord with the intent of the Lawgiver. Even if divine laws are eternal and applicable in every age, as promulgated by the Prophet, they may be hidden and cryptic. It may be that the wisdom behind their hiddenness is the extension of divine mercy on His servants who rely upon the hidden Imam (asws-ajf) who is a proof for mankind, or that it corresponds to the condition of a people at a particular time. Perhaps a hidden ruling or one which has not been transmitted is a mercy for mankind.
The believers used to ask the Prophet (saww) in detail about certain rulings for which he gave a prohibition. In addition to the prohibition, however, he criticized the one who asked the ruling because the prohibition constricted the rest of the believers. If this was the case during the time of a prophet, who is the divine emissary, then what is one to think in absence of the Prophet. The Prophet (saww) used to say, “Don't concern yourself with things about which I have kept silent,” since many who lived during the time of earlier Prophets inquired incessantly about rulings until they perished (spiritually). This is because if a Prophet forbids something (verbally) then one must adhere to it and if he commands something (verbally) then one must fulfill it.
Muslim relates a tradition which states, “The Prophet (saww) addressed the people saying, ‘O people, Allah ordained the pilgrimage so perform it.’ Then someone asked, ‘Every year O Prophet of Allah (saww)?’ So the Prophet kept silent. Then after asking the same question thrice, the Prophet (saww) responded saying, ‘If I say yes, then it will be incumbent upon you to perform it every year. But you will not be able to do so, so let go of the things about which I have kept silent.”
Tabari relates that the following verse was revealed in this context, “O you who believe! Do not ask questions about things which, if made clear to you, may vex you. But if you ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.” (Q 5:101).
Is extensive research and discursive rational thought the only criterion for a valid ruling? How can the jurist who uses only discursive reasoning through acquired exoteric knowledge understand that a particular ruling is perhaps more vast in scope than he surmises, when he is a slave to the rules of logical deduction by which he reaches his legal derivation. In reality, he will not be able to understand the ruling without a luminous heart and spiritual unveiling, which is essential to understanding it and the spirit of its import.
Jurisprudential derivation which is based on rational deduction alone is nothing more than conjecture since it is bounded by the limits of the human mind. In contrast, a more comprehensive derivation is one that includes divine guidance and allows one to discover the true nature of the ruling. The rationalist legal doctor therefore does not possess the necessary qualifications for being the 'most knowledgeable' which is the basis, according to the legalists, for imitating him. Furthermore, many of the jurists themselves absolve themselves of responsibility in their own handbooks of religious law because they have come the following conclusions based on personal effort. In other words, they claim that their sole responsibility is to rationally derive religious laws to the best of their abilities and not necessarily find the correct answers.
How can this be the criteria of the 'most knowledgeable' and how can any intelligent person invest their entire spiritual life on these 'so-called' rulings? Perhaps, many of these rulings are far from the mark, totally antithetical to intent of the Lawgiver, but the Shi'ites are absolved from all responsibility since they place their deeds on the neck of the jurist--according to the definition of taqlid.
However, the criterion in the Quran is not to imitate individuals but to adhere to truth, as stated in the Quranic verse, "Those who listen to words and apply the best from it. Surely, those are people whom Allah has guided and they are the people of understanding" (Q 39:18).
Islam does not simply encourage independent thinking, but demands it, engaging the intellect in all of its facets. Imam 'Ali (asws) says, "Know truth, then you will recognize its followers." But we have reversed the measure in the prevalent religious institutions. We find an individual then blindly follow them in the hopes that it is the truth! If there is no investigation on our part, it is equivalent to foregoing knowledge for ignorance and renouncing the intellect's light for darkness. Any opinion which calls one to abandon the intellect or limit its scope has no value, neither in the view of true religion nor in the minds of a sane individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment