Taqlid?

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmetullah.
I begin by asking that people open their minds. A lecture was delivered on the 28th of August 2011 in the month of Ramadan. This lecture harshly attacked questioning taqlid. Let us examine some of the points of this lecture. It should be pointed out that the aim is not to disprove taqlid, but only to respond to this lecture. Certainly this response is not comprehensive and there is much more that could be mentioned. Alot of this response was compiled from the words of others.
It was said in the lecture that someone was telling the youth that they do not need to do taqlid. If this is in reference to myself, then this is false. I was not propagating my views and kept them to myself unless asked and even then I avoided explaining my position. In-fact, I have never properly explained my position to anyone. The harsh attack against those who question taqlid has forced me to write this against my will, in-case silence is interpreted as successively ending the possibility of questioning taqlid. The truth must be said, like it was said by Abu Dharr; whether people accept it or instead attack is of course another matter.
It should be pointed out that it is not the concept of referring to the ulema that is being questioned but rather taqlid which is often practiced as unconditionally and blindly following a single living scholar or something similar.
Contents:
Who does the Quran tell us to do taqlid to?
The position on taqlid to non-ma`soomeen in the hadiths
Are there hadiths in support of taqlid to non-ma`soomeen?
How many scholars are liars?
Finding the most knowledgeable is impossible
It is hypocritical to imitate in fiqh but not in belief
Is more than one scholar right?
Is Deen so complicated?
Should we do taqlid because we do it in other areas of our life?
Who started taqlid?
What is the historical position of the faqih?
What about new issues? Don't we need ijtihad?





Who does the Quran tell us to do taqlid to?
Taqlid is to imitate the opinions of a scholar in fiqh. It is effectively, usually blind and unconditional following of a single living scholar.
Nowhere in the Quran are we told to do this taqlid to anyone; except of course to those whom Allah, azza wa jalla, has told us to obey:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ
(4:59) O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you...
Here we are told to obey Allah, His Prophet Muhammed (S), and "those in authority among you". The latter refers to the Imams (A). This is supported by hadiths. For example:
[7] أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ أَبِي الْعَلَاءِ قَالَ ذَكَرْتُ لِأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَوْلَنَا فِي الْأَوْصِيَاءِ إِنَّ طَاعَتَهُمْ مُفْتَرَضَةٌ قَالَ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ هُمُ الَّذِينَ قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ (النساء -: 59 -) وَ هُمُ الَّذِينَ قَالَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ إِنَّما وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَ رَسُولُهُ وَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا (المائدة -: 55 -)
Ahmad bin Muhammad has narrated from Ali bin al-Hakam from al-Husayn bin Abu al-‘Ala’ who said: “Once I mentioned to Imam Abu 'Abdillah (as-Sadiq) (A) our expression about the successors (of the prophets (A)) ‘Obedience to them is obligatory’, He (the Imam) (A) said, ‘It is very true; they are the people about whom Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, has said, “Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your ’Ulu al-’Amr (Leaders who possess Divine Authority). . . .” (4:59) It is they about whom Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, has also said, ‘Only Allah, His Messenger and the true believers who are steadfast in prayer and pay alms, while they kneel during prayer, are your guardians.’” (5:55)
(source: al-Kulayni's al-Kafi, vol. 1, kitab al-Hujjah, chapter 8: بَابُ فَرْضِ طَاعَةِ الَئِمّةِ, pg. 187, hadith #7. Majlisi II grades this hadith as Hasan like a Sahih hadith in Miraat al-Uqool, vol. 2, pg. 326.)
And another example:
[1] عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ يُونُسَ وَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ يُونُسَ عَنِ ابْنِ مُسْكَانَ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع عَنْ قَوْلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ (النساء -: 59 -) فَقَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ وَ الْحَسَنِ وَ الْحُسَيْنِ ع فَقُلْتُ لَهُ إِنَّ النَّاسَ يَقُولُونَ فَمَا لَهُ لَمْ يُسَمِّ عَلِيّاً وَ أَهْلَ بَيْتِهِ ع فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ قَالَ فَقَالَ قُولُوا لَهُمْ إِن‏
Ali bin Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad bin ‘Isa from Yunus and Ali bin Muhammad from Sahl bin Ziyad, and Abu Sa‘id from Muhammad bin ‘Isa from Yunus from ibn Muskan from Abu Basir who said: “I asked Abu 'AbdAllah (as-Sadiq) (A) about the words of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High: ‘Believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority). . . .’ (4:59) “The Imam said, ‘This was sent from the heavens about Ali bin Abu Talib, al-Hassan and al-Husayn (A).’........
(Source: al-Kulayni's al-Kafi, vol. 1, kitab al-Hujjah, chapter 64, p286, hadith #1. Majlisi II grades this hadith as hadith in Miraat al-Uqool, vol. 3, p213, as sahih.)
And there are more hadiths which could be given about the obeying of those in authority amongst you in 4:59 as referring to the Imams. There are also other hadiths which tell us that it is obligatory to obey the Imams. For example, thiqat al-Islam shaykh al-Kulayni in al-Kafi, the main classical book of hadiths, names a chapter as "بَابُ فَرْضِ طَاعَةِ الَئِمّةِ" ("The Obligation to Obey ‘A’immah") in which he records several hadiths supporting this, including:
[6] أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ سَيْفِ بْنِ عَمِيرَةَ عَنْ أَبِي الصَّبَّاحِ الْكِنَانِيِّ قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع نَحْنُ قَوْمٌ فَرَضَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ طَاعَتَنَا لَنَا الْأَنْفَالُ وَ لَنَا صَفْوُ الْمَالِ وَ نَحْنُ الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ وَ نَحْنُ الْمَحْسُودُونَ الَّذِينَ قَالَ اللَّهُ أَمْ يَحْسُدُونَ النَّاسَ عَلى‏ ما آتاهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ (النساء -: 54 -)
Ahmad bin Muhammad has narrated from Muhammad bin Abu ‘Umayr from Sayf bin ‘Amiyra from Abu al-Sabbah al-Kinani who said that Imam Abu ‘Abdillah (A) said: “We are a people obedience to whom is obligatory by the command of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High....
(source: al-Kulayni's al-Kafi, vol. 1, kitab al-Hujjah, chapter 8, hadith #6, p187. Majlisi II grades this hadith as sahih in Miraat al-Uqool, vol. 2, pg. 325.)
Thus the Quran tells us that our allegiance is to Allah and the Imam of our time.
The position on taqlid to non-ma`soomeen in the hadiths
Thiqat al-Islam ash-shaykh al-Kulayni records in al-Kafi, the main book of hadiths for the Shia, three hadiths in a chapter which he has entitled "the chapter of taqlid", in vol. 1, kitab al-Hujjah, pg. 53:
[1] عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ«» عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنِ ابْنِ مُسْكَانَ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قُلْتُ لَهُ اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبارَهُمْ وَ رُهْبانَهُمْ أَرْباباً مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ (التوبة -: 31 -) فَقَالَ أَمَا وَ اللَّهِ مَا دَعَوْهُمْ إِلَى عِبَادَةِ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَ لَوْ دَعَوْهُمْ مَا أَجَابُوهُمْ وَ لَكِنْ أَحَلُّوا لَهُمْ حَرَاماً وَ حَرَّمُوا عَلَيْهِمْ حَلَالًا فَعَبَدُوهُمْ مِنْ حَيْثُ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ
1 – Muhammad b. Ya`qub from a number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid from `Abdullah b. Yahya from Ibn Muskan from Abu Basir – meaning al-Muradi – from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام.  He said: I said to him: “They took their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from Allah”. (9:31) So he said: Indeed by Allah, they did not call them to worship themselves, rather they allowed (i.e. made halal) for them (something) forbidden (haram) and forbade (i.e. made haram) upon them something allowed (halal).  So they worshiped them wherefrom they did not perceive.
 (Majlisi II grades this hadith as hasan in Miraat al-Uqool, vol. 1, pg. 183.)
[2] عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ«» الْهَمَذَانِيِّ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عُبَيْدَةَ قَالَ قَالَ لِي أَبُو الْحَسَنِ ع يَا مُحَمَّدُ أَنْتُمْ أَشَدُّ تَقْلِيداً أَمِ الْمُرْجِئَةُ قَالَ قُلْتُ قَلَّدْنَا وَ قَلَّدُوا فَقَالَ لَمْ أَسْأَلْكَ عَنْ هَذَا فَلَمْ يَكُنْ عِنْدِي جَوَابٌ أَكْثَرُ مِنَ الْجَوَابِ الْأَوَّلِ فَقَالَ أَبُو الْحَسَنِ ع إِنَّ الْمُرْجِئَةَ نَصَبَتْ رَجُلًا لَمْ تَفْرِضْ طَاعَتَهُ وَ قَلَّدُوهُ وَ أَنْتُمْ نَصَبْتُمْ رَجُلًا وَ فَرَضْتُمْ طَاعَتَهُ ثُمَّ لَمْ تُقَلِّدُوهُ فَهُمْ أَشَدُّ مِنْكُمْ تَقْلِيداً
2 – And from `Ali b. Muhammad from Sahl b. Ziyad from Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Hamadani from Muhammad b. `Ubayda.  He said: Abu ‘l-Hasan عليه السلام said to me: O Muhammad, are you (plural) acuter in taqlid or the Murji’a?  He said: I said: We do taqlid and they do taqlid.  So he said: I did not ask you this. And I did not have an answer with me more than the first answer.  So Abu ‘l-Hasan عليه السلام said: Verily the Murji’a appointed a man whose obedience was not made obligatory, and they did taqlid to him.  And you appointed a man and obliged his obedience, then you did not do taqlid to him.  So they are acuter in taqlid than you.
(Majlisi II grades this hadith as dha`eef alah mashoor in Miraat al-Uqool, vol. 1, pg. 184.)
[3] مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ عَنِ الْفَضْلِ بْنِ شَاذَانَ عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ رِبْعِيِّ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع فِي قَوْلِ اللَّهِ جَلَّ وَ عَزَّ اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبارَهُمْ وَ رُهْبانَهُمْ أَرْباباً مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ (التوبة -: 31 -) فَقَالَ وَ اللَّهِ مَا صَامُوا لَهُمْ وَ لَا صَلَّوْا لَهُمْ وَ لَكِنْ أَحَلُّوا لَهُمْ حَرَاماً وَ حَرَّمُوا عَلَيْهِمْ حَلَالًا فَاتَّبَعُوهُمْ
3 – And from Muhammad b. Isma`il from al-Fadl b. Shadhan from Hammad b. `Isa from Rib`i b. `Abdullah from Abu Basir from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام regarding the saying (verse) of Allah عزّ وجلّ “They took their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from Allah”.  So he said: By Allah, they did not fast for them, nor did they pray to them, rather they made allowed for them (something) forbidden, and forbade upon them (something) allowed, so they followed them.
(Majlisi II grades this hadith as majhool ka`l sahih in Miraat al-Uqool, vol. 1, pg. 185.)
The negativity of the hadiths in this chapter strongly suggest that al-Kulayni's opinion toward taqlid is negative. So is thiqat al-Islam (the trustworthy one of Islam) shaykh al-Kulayni a liar? Let us remember that he collected 16,000 hadiths in his book al-Kafi which is the main classical book of hadiths.
Hadiths 1 and 3 condemn unconditionally obeying a scholar: this refutes some people's idea that there is no blame on a person who does something wrong as long as his marja' allowed it.
In hadith 2, there is indirect condemnation of taqlid to other than the Imams in the words "Verily the Murji’a appointed a man whose obedience was not made obligatory, and they did taqlid to him".
Al-Hurr al-Amili has recorded a whole chapter against taqlid in which he includes over 20 hadiths.
Are there hadiths in support of taqlid to non-ma`soomeen?
This Deen was revealed by the Prophet (S) and preserved by the Imams (A). Obedience to them is obligatory and they are the only ones authorised by Allah, azza wa jalla, to be the sources of the Deen. We do not include the Sahaba, regardless of the level of knowledge they may have reached, nor any other figures, including ulema. Everyone must defer to the Prophet and Imams. However even the Imams have no power to issue new rules or opinions into the Deen:

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ مِهْرَانَ عَنْ سَيْفِ بْنِ عَمِيرَةَ عَنْ أَبِي الْمَغْرَاءِ عَنْ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ مُوسَى ع قَالَ قُلْتُ لَهُ أَ كُلُّ شَيْ‏ءٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَ سُنَّةِ نَبِيِّهِ ص أَوْ تَقُولُونَ فِيهِ قَالَ بَلْ كُلُّ شَيْ‏ءٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَ سُنَّةِ نَبِيِّهِ ص

From Samaa`ah from Abu al-Hasan Musa (عليه السلام): I said to him (عليه السلام): “Is everything in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), or do you have a say in it?” He (عليه السلام) said: “Rather, everything is in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)”
(Source: Al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 62, hadith 10. Majlisi grades this hadeeth as muwathaq in Miraat al-Uqool, vol. 1, pg. 209)

This reliable hadith also shows us that all of the details of the Deen have been preserved in the book of Allah, which is the Quran, and the Sunnah which is the hadiths of the Prophet and the 12 Imams, reporting their actions, words, and approval.
Therefore we must justify our beliefs, practices, and opinions in Deen using the hadiths of the Imams. It is not permissible to turn elsewhere:

(24) حدثنا أحمد بن محمد (ثقة) عن الحسن بن علي [ الوشاء] عن أبي إسحاق ثعلبة (ثقة) عن أبي مريم (ثقة قال:(قال أبو جعفر (A) لسلمة بن كهيل والحكم بن عتيبة شرقا وغربا لن تجدا علما صحيحا الا شيئا يخرج من عندنا أهل البيت)

24 – Ahmad b. Muhammad (thiqa) from al-Hasan b. `Ali [al-Washsha] from Abu Ishaq Tha`laba (thiqa) from Abu Maryam (thiqa).  He said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said to Salama b. Kuhayl and al-Hakam b. `Utayba: (Even if you two) go East or West, you will never find sound knowledge but something that comes out from us, the People of the House.
(Source: Sahih Basa'ir ad-Darajat)

To insert our own opinions into the Deen, or to practice something in the Deen without a basis in the words of the Prophet and the Imams is a bid`ah:

68 - عنه، عن بعض أصحابنا، عن محمد بن سنان، عن أبي خالد، عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر (A) قال: أدنى الشرك أن يتبدع الرجل رأيا فيحب عليه ويبغض.

68 – And from him from one of our companions from Muhammad b. Sinan from Abu Khalid from Muhammad b. Muslim from Abu Ja`far عليه السلام.  He said: The vilest shirk is that the man innovates a view, so upon it he loves and he hates.
Source: Kitab al-Mahasin
Is there such a thing as a “good bid`ah”?

إِنَّ كُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلَالَةٌ وَ كُلَّ ضَلَالَةٍ سَبِيلُهَا إِلَى النَّارِ
(Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq said:) Every bid`a is misguidance, and every misguidance, its path is to the Fire
(Source: Al-Sadooq, Man Laa YaHDuruh Al-Faqih, vol. 2, pg. 137, hadith # 1964. al-Majlisi grades this hadith as sahih in Milaadh al-Akhyaar, vol. 5, pg. 28.)
Thus in recognition of the above, those who practice taqlid have searched for hadiths which justify taqlid. Let us examine most, if not all, of these hadiths they quote in defence of taqlid:
First hadith
This hadith was given in the lecture:
The Imam said: The one from amongst the jurists who how protect themselves from the urges of there nafs, and preserves their faith, and the ones who obey god, it becomes wajib upon the people that they do taqlid of him. (Source: Al-Ihtejaaj Vol 2 Page 458)
The original source of this hadith is actually the tafseer ascribed to Imam al-Askari, which is weak, and considered by some, including Khui was a great scholar of hadiths, to be a forgery. Furthermore, the actual translationi is: it is (allowed) for the common people to follow him. (The particular li prefixed to the verb in this context does not indicate wujub, rather permissibility, allowance for an act).
أن الرواية ضعيفة السند لان التفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري- (A)- لم يثبت بطريق قابل للاعتماد عليه فان في طريقه جملة من المجاهيل كمحمد بن القاسم الأسترآبادي، و يوسف بن محمد بن زياد، و علي بن محمد بن سيار فليلاحظ. هذا إذا أريد بالتفسير المنسوب إلى العسكري- ع- هو الذي ذكره الصدوق «قده» بإسناده عن محمد بن القاسم الأسترآبادي، و الظاهر أنه مجلد واحد كما لا يخفى على من لاحظ التفسير الموجود بأيدينا اليوم
“The narrated is weak in the sanad because the Tafseer that has been attributed to Al-`Askaree wasn't proven to be as such through a correct way, for there are several majhool narrators like Muhammad bin Al-Qaasim Al-Astraabaadee, Yoosuf bin Muhammad bin Ziyaad, and 'Alee bin Muhammad Sayyaar, so one would notice that when Al-Sadooq mentions the tafseer through Mohammed bin Al-Qasim Al-Asterabadi, and it appears to be a vol. long which is what one would observe from the copy that has reached us today”
(Source:  Al-Khoei, TanqeeH fee SharH Al’Urwah Al-Wuthqaa, vol. 1, pg. 221)
Hurr al-Amili (compiler of Wasaa-il Al-Shee’ah) has discussed this tafseer in depth in his book Al-Fuwaa-id Al-Tusiyyah, where he argues for the book being fabricated (mawdoo`) and (dha`eef) weak that this book is mawDoo’ (fabricated) and da’eef (weak). This is the reason why he has not quotes this book in his compilation of Wasaa-il.
See  al-Hurr al-‘Amili’s Al-Fuwaa-id Al-Tusiyyah, Chapter 42 – Condition of Tafseer Al-‘Askaree, pg.s 128 - 130.
Furthermore, this hadith does not talk about taqlid. It simply says the people are allowed to follow a just jurist. The hadith in full says:
[ 33401 ] 20 ـ أحمد بن علي بن أبي طالب الطبرسي في ( الاحتجاج ) عن أبي محمد العسكري ( (A) ) في قوله تعالى : ( فويل للذين يكتبون الكتاب بأيديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله ) قال : هذه لقوم من اليهود ـ إلى أن قال : ـ وقال رجل للصادق ( (A) ) : إذا كان هؤلاء العوام من اليهود لا يعرفون الكتاب ، إلا بما يسمعونه من علمائهم ، فكيف ذمهم بتقليدهم والقبول من علمائهم ؟ وهل عوام اليهود إلا كعوامنا ، يقلدون علماءهم ـ إلى أن قال : ـ فقال ( (A) ) : بين عوامنا وعوام اليهود فرق من جهة ، وتسوية من جهة ، أما من حيث الاستواء ، فإن الله ذم عوامنا بتقليدهم علماءهم ، كما ذم عوامهم ، وأما من حيث افترقوا ، فإنّ عوام اليهود كانوا قد عرفوا علماءهم بالكذب الصراح ، وأكل الحرام ، والرشاء ، وتغيير الأحكام ، واضطروا بقلوبهم إلى أن من فعل ذلك فهو فاسق ، لا يجوز أن يصدق على الله ، ولا على الوسائط بين الخلق وبين الله ، فلذلك ذمهم ، وكذلك عوامنا إذا عرفوا من علمائهم الفسق الظاهر ، والعصبية الشديدة ، والتكالب على الدنيا وحرامها ، فمن قلد مثل هؤلاء فهو مثل اليهود الذين ذمهم الله بالتقليد لفسقة علمائهم ، فأما من كان من الفقهاء صائنا لنفسه ، حافظا لدينه ، مخالفا على هواه ، مطيعا لامر مولاه ، فللعوام أن يقلدوه ، وذلك لا يكون إلا بعض فقهاء الشيعة لا كلهم ، فان من ركب من القبايح والفواحش مراكب علماء العامة ، فلا تقبلوا منهم عنا شيئاً ، ولا كرامة ، وإنما كثر التخليط فيما يتحمل عنا أهل البيت لذلك ، لأن الفسقة يتحملون عنا ، فيحرفونه بأسره لجهلهم ، ويضعون الأشياء على غير وجهها لقلة معرفتهم ، وآخرون يتعمدون الكذب علينا. الحديث .
20 – Ahmad b. `Ali b. Abi Talib at-Tabrisi in al-Ihtijaj from Abu Muhammad al-`Askari عليه السلام regarding His تعالى saying “So woe be to those who write the book by their hands then say ‘This is from Allah.’” (2:79) He said: This is about a group of the Jews – until he said: And a man said to as-Sadiq عليه السلام: If these commoners from the Jews did not know the book except for what they heard from their scholars, then how is their censure by their taqlid and acceptance from their scholars?  And are not the commoners of the Jews but like our commoners, doing taqlid to their scholars – until he said: So he عليه السلام said: Between our commoners and the commoners of the Jews there is a difference on the one hand, and equality on the other hand.  Now as to the equality, then verily Allah has censured our commoners by their taqlid of their scholars as he has censured their commoners.  And as to their being different, then verily the commoners of the Jews had recognized outright lying from their scholars, and the consumption of the haram , bribery, and changing the rulings (al-ahkam). They would be compelled by their hearts to (realtize) that whoever does that then he is an immoral person (fasiq), not being permitted to assent to Allah nor the means that are between the creation and Allah (translation of this sentence unclear).  And their censure is because of that.  And likewise are our commoners when they recognize apparent immorality from their scholars, and acute tribalism (`asabiyya), and avidity for the world and its forbidden (things).  So whoever does taqlid to the likes of these, then he is like the Jews who Allah has censured for their taqlid to the immorality of their scholars.  However, whoever from the fuqaha is preserving of himself, guarding his religion, opposing his desires, obeying the command of his master, then it is (allowed) for the commoners to do taqlid to him.  And that is not but for some of the fuqaha of the Shia, not all of them, for verily whoever embarks from the ugly (deeds) and obscenities of the embarkments of the scholars of the `Aamma, then do not accept anything from them about us, and there is no respect.  And surely the mixing (i.e. of what is true and what is falsely claimed) of what comes from us has increased, the People of the House, because of that, for verily the immoral persons bear hatred towards us.  So they corrupt it while keeping it hostage due to their ignorance, and they put the things upon other than their aspects due to the paucity of their cognizance.  And others purposely lie about us (- to the end of the hadith)
Shaykh al-Hurr al-Amili comments on this hadith saying:
 أقول : التقليد المرخص فيه هنا إنما هو قبول الرواية ، لا قبول الرأي والاجتهاد والظن ، وهذا واضح ، وذلك لاخلاف فيه ، ولا ينافي ما تقدم ، وقد وقع التصريح بذلك فيما أوردناه من الحديث ، وفيما تركناه منه في عدة مواضع ، على أن هذا الحديث لا يجوز عند الاصوليين الاعتماد عليه في الاصول ، ولا في الفروع ، لأنه خبر واحد مرسل ، ظني السند والمتن ، ضعيفا عندهم ، ومعارضه متواتر ، قطعي السند والدلالة ، ومع ذلك يحتمل الحمل على التقية .
I say: The permitted taqlid in here is only the acceptance of narration, not the acceptance of opinion and ijtihad and speculation, and this is clear and there is no disagreement in that.  And it does not negate what has preceded and which there has occurred of declaration in what we have brought from the hadith, and in what we have left of it in a number of places, upon that reliance on this hadith is not permissible according to the Usoolis in usool or in furu`, for it is solitary mursal report, with a conjectural sanad and text, da`if according to them.  And its opposite is mutawatir, of positive sanad and evidence, and (along) with that it is possible to interpret it to be upon taqiyya.
So in summary this hadith is from a dha`eef (weak) source considered forged by some ulema, including al-Khui, and does not talk about taqlid as people practice it.
Second hadith
This was the other hadith that was quoted in the lecture:
In reply to a question Ishaq Ibn Yaq'ub had sent to Imam Zamana (AF) via the second deputy: "As far as newly occurring circumstances are concerned, you should turn (for guidance) to the narrators of our hadiths, for they are my proof over you just as I am Allah's proof over them" (Sources: Al-Ihtijaj, Al-Tabrasi, vol 2, p 260, Al-'Amili, Wasail Al-Shia, vol 18, p 101, Bihar Al-Anwar, Al-Majlisi vol 53, p 181)
This has a technically dha`eef (weak) isnad (chain of narrators) because Ishaq bin Ya`qoob is majhool (unknown) and so is Muhammad bin `aasim al-kulayni. Usooli Imamis prefer to act on hadiths with strong isnaads (chains of narrators). Furthermore, it is interesting to see how this part of the hadith is used to justify taqlid whereas this line is ignored:
وأما الخمس فقد ابيح لشيعتنا وجعلوا منه في حل إلى وقت ظهور أمرنا لتطيب ولادتهم ولا تخبث .
And as to the khums, then indeed it is permissible for our shi`ah and it has been made lawful for them till the time of zhuhur (advent) of our affair, that their births may be made pleasant and not evil.
Here in this same hadith, Imam al-Mahdi is reported to have abrogated khums during the ghaybah. One cannot this hadith as evidence unless one also accepts this line.
More hadiths that are quoted in support of taqlid but where not mentioned in the lecture include:
Third hadith:
 `Umar ibn Hanzalah asked Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq, peace be upon him, about the legality of two Shi'ahs seeking a verdict from an illegitimate ruler in a dispute over a debt or a legacy. The Imam's answer was that it was absolutely forbidden to do so. Then Ibn Hanzalah asked what the two should do, and the Imam replied: "They must seek out one of you who narrates our traditions, who is versed in what is permissible and what is forbidden, who is well-acquainted with our laws and ordinances, and accept him as judge and arbiter, for I appoint him as judge over you. If the ruling which he based on our laws is rejected, this rejection will be tantamount to ignoring the order of Allah and rejecting us is the same as rejecting Allah, and this is the same as polytheism." (Source: al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, vol. 7, Tehran 1379, p. 412)
Usooli Imamis prefer to act on hadiths with strong isnaads (chains of narrators). This isnaad is technically dha`eef as Umar bin Handhalah is majhool (unknown). Thus the Usoolis are bound by principle to not accept and act on it, even though they do.
Furthermore, the full hadith which has not been quoted has nothing to do with taqlid. When read in full context, it can be seen to be about the impermissibility of two Shia taking their legal disputes (about inheritance, debts) against one another in front of one of the qadis (judges) of the oppressors, but rather they should bring their dispute to a learned Shia who can decide their case for them by using the rulings of the Imams (as). To extend this to mean referring to taqlid (as in picking a jurist who you follow in your `ibada, mu`millat) is stretching the text way out of context. It specifically says to refer to the رواة حديثنا ("narrators of our (the Imams') hadiths") which should tell you about what their primary function is supposed to be.
Fourth hadith
Zakariyyah ibn Adam al-Qummi and Yunus bin `Abduí r-Rahman, for example, were named by Imam `Ali ar-Rida' to solve disputes in their own districts" (Source: Shaykh Hurr al-`Amili, Wasa'ilu 'sh-Shiah, vol. 18, Tehran 1401 A.H., pp. 106-7.)
Yes, some of the companions of the Imams would be tasked with spreading their hadith and passing fatwa with it. This actually is a proof though _against_ the current system (the obligatory nature of picking a single most knowledgable mujtahid and doing taqlid to him) since: You say you must do taqlid to the a`lam, i.e. you must follow his fatwas. So, we would not be allowed to follow fatwas of the lesser knowledgeable scholars right? (I mean in cases where there is a fatwa, not just ihtiyat and doing ruju`) Tell me now, who during Yunus bin Abdur-Rahmaan's time and other companions time being told to pass fatwas time was the a`lam? The Imam of course.
Also, back then these rijal were not being tasked with practicing ijtihad and figuring out answers to new issues and such, this was in fact considered haram (as ijtihad itself was for centuries even after the ghayba deemed haram).
It's also ironic to cite Hurr al-`Amuli on this, since he wrote very strenuously against taqlid and ijtihad (see his Fawa'id at-Tusiyya)
Thus in summary the hadiths quoted in defence of taqlid either have weak isnads, or are from weak/forged sources, or are twisted out of context, or don't discuss the system of taqlid, or a combination of all these factors. If a person brings more hadiths to justify taqlid, a person should utilise their reason and see firstly if the hadith even actually talks about taqlid before anything else.
Therefore, since there are no reliable, or even weak, hadiths that talk about taqlid then why should we accept a system that has no basis in the teachings of the Prophet and the Imams? We should not accept reasons that are based on analogies, reasoning, etc. when the system has no basis in the teachings of the Imams. So when the speaker said that there is a system in which you must do taqlid or become a mujtahid, where is the evidence? Where does the Imam go through the system of taqlid and explain
It is to be pointed out that it is not referring to the ulema that is being condemned but rather taqlid which is often practiced as unconditionally and blindly following a single living scholar.
How many scholars are liars?
When the lecturer said that whoever denys taqlid is a liar, then us ask about the status of thiqat al-Islam shaykh al-Kulayni who was mentioned previously?
Other ulema who condemned taqlid and ijtihad include shaykh as-Sadooq, shaykh al-Mufeed in his usool al-fiqh, shareef al-Muratadha in his dharaee`ah, shaykh at-Taa’ifa at-Tusi in his `uddah. These are no ordinary scholars. Shaykh at-Tusi for instance has been called shaykh at-Taa’ifa meaning that he is leader of the scholars of the Shia. How could these great ulema who lived not long after the minor ghaybah all be in grave error, or “liars”, when it is ulema such as shaykh at-Tusi who compiled the hadiths we have today? In-case, the accusation is made that this a lie let us quote ayatollah Muhammed Baqir as-Sadr who in his book called  دروس في علم الأصول  (lessons in the science of usool), in the chapter of  جواز عملية الاستنباط (permissibility of deriving rulings):
‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd ar-Rahman az-Zubayr [250/870] wrote a book entitled The Benefit: Concerning the Attacks on the First Caliphs and a Rejection of the Users of Ijtihad and Analogy. Hilal b. Ibrahim b. ’Abil-Fath al-Madani wrote a book on the subject entitled A Refutation of Those who Reject the Reports of the Prophet and Rely on the Results of Intellects. In the period of the Lesser Occultation [260/874 – 329/941] or near to that time, ’Ismail b. ‘Ali b. ’Ishaq b. ’Abi Sahl an-Nawbakhti [died 311/923] wrote a book refuting ‘Isa b. ’Aban on ijtihad. All of this is set down by an-Najashi [died 450/1058], the author of Ar-Rijal, in his biographical notices of each of the above.
In the period succeeding the Lesser Occultation we find [Ibn Babawayh al-Qumi] as-Sadduq in the mid-fourth [eleventh] century continuing this attack. As an example we mention his comment on the story of Moses and al-Khidr, when he wrote:
“Moses, in spite of the perfection of his intellect and his excellence and his position [as a prophet] in relation to God Most High, failed to comprehend the meaning of the actions of al-Khidr with his powers of inference and deriving conclusions, so much so that Moses became confused as to the nature of the situation. If analogy and derivation and inference are not permissible for the Prophets of God and His Messengers, then how much more so must those below them among the religious communities not be permitted them! If the option to choose [an interpretation] was not correct for Moses, in spite of his excellence and his position, then how can a religious community be fit to have the option of choosing the Imam, and how are they fit to derive divine-law rulings and infer them with their imperfect intellects and differing opinions?”
In the latter part of the fourth century Shaykh al-Mufid [died 413/1022] came and followed the same line and attacked ijtihad, referring by this word to the above-mentioned legal principle [of private judgment]. He wrote a book on this subject entitled A Refutation of ‘Ali b. al-Junayd [al-’Iskafi] Concerning the Ijtihad of Individual Opinion.
We find the term itself in the works of as-Sayyid al-Murtada [died 436/1034] in the early part of the fifth century, when he wrote in adh-Dhari‘a condemning ijtihad, saying “Ijtihad is invalid, and the Imamiyya do not consider it permissible to proceed according to supposition or individual opinion or ijtihad.” In his legal book al-Intisar he wrote, referring to Ibn al-Junayd, “It is a kind of individual opinion and ijtihad that Ibn al-Junayd relied upon in this question and his error is evident.” And on the question of wiping the top of both feet clean in ablution, he says in the chapter on purity of Intisar: “We do not consider ijtihad correct and do not advocate it.”
This particular use of the word ijtihad also continued after that time. Thus ash-Shaykh at-Tusi who died in the middle of the fifth century A.H. writes in his book al-‘Udda, “As for analogy and ijtihad, in our school they are not arguments; rather, their use is prohibited.” In the latter part of the sixth century Ibn ’Idris [died 598/1202] in his book as-Sara’ir in his discussion of the question of the contradiction of two oral testimonies reviews a number of the reasons for preferring one testimony over another, then comments “According to the followers of our school there is no other reason for giving preference [to one testimony over another]; analogy, discretionary opinion and ijtihad are invalid in our school.”
Thus we see many early ulema have prohibited ijtihad. Baqir as-Sadr admits this and attempts to solve the problem by claiming that whenever the ulema used the word “ijtihad”, they meant personal speculation/opinion. This is at odds with many of the quotes above which clearly make a distinction between personal opinions and ijtihad by listing them separately. The ulema have made a distinction between ra'y (personal opinion), dhann (speculation), ijtihaad. Baqir as-Sadr defines the modern definition of ijtihad as the process of derivation of rulings from their sources. He admits that Muhaqiq al-Hilli was the earliest person he could find who changed the definition of ijtihad for the Shia; is this not proof that the modern concept of ijtihad is a bid`ah, since the hadiths do not mention it and neither do the ulema? In-fact, even this modern ijtihad is condemned by ulema, such as shaykh as-Sadooq, who in the above quoted passage, points out that even the Prophet Moses (A) failed in his interpretations.
What about shaykh al-Hurr al-Amili who denied talqeed and ijtihad, such as in his Fawa'id at-Tusiyya? Let us remember that he is the compiler of Wasaa'il ash-Shia, one of the most important books of hadiths for fiqh for ulema. Is the man who had to shift through thousands of hadiths to compile this great book a liar?
In-fact, in Wasaa'il ash-Shia, al-Hurr al-Amili has a chapter entitled ـ باب عدم جواز تقليد غير المعصوم ( عليه السلام ) فيما يقول برأيه ، وفيما لا يعمل فيه بنص عنهم ( عليهم السلام ) (Chapter on the impermissibility of taqlid to other than the Ma`sum (A) in what he says by his opinion, and in what he does not act in by a textual ordinance from them (A)). In this chapter, he quotes hadiths such as:
[ 33396 ] 15 ـ وفي ( معاني الأخبار ) عن أبيه ، عن سعد بن عبدالله ، عن محمد بن الحسين ، عن محمد بن خالد ، عن أخيه سفيان بن خالد ، قال : قال أبو عبدالله ( (A) ) : إياك والرياسة ، فما طلبها أحد إلا هلك ، فقلت : قد هلكنا إذاً ، ليس أحد منا إلا وهو يحب أن يذكر ، ويقصد ، ويؤخذ عنه ، فقال : ليس حيث تذهب ، إنما ذلك أن تنصب رجلا دون الحجة ، فتصدقه في كل ما قال ، وتدعو الناس إلى قوله .
15 – And in Ma`ani al-Akhbar from his father from Sa`d b. `Abdullah from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from Muhammad b. Khalid from his brother Sufyan b. Khalid.  He said: Abu `Abdillah عليه السلامsaid: Beware you of leadership.  No one seeks it but that he is destroyed.  So I said: Then we have been destroyed.  There is no one from us but that he loves to be mentioned, to be sought, and to be taken (i.e. learned) from.  So he said: It is not where you are going (i.e. it is not as you think).  That is only that a man be appointed apart from the Hujja, and so he be believed in all of what he says, and you call the people to his saying (or, his doctrine).
[ 33399 ] 18 ـ سعد بن عبدالله في ( بصائر الدرجات ) عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، عن الحسين بن سعيد ، والعباس بن معروف ، عن حماد ابن عيسى ، عن ربعي بن عبدالله ، عن الفضيل بن يسار ، قال : سمعت أبا جعفر ( (A) ) يقول : كل ما لم يخرج من هذا البيت فهو باطل .
18 – Sa`d b. `Abdullah in Basa’ir ad-Darajat from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. `Isa from al-Husayn b. Sa`id from al-`Abbas b. Ma`ruf from Hammad b. `Isa from Rab`i b. `Abdullah from al-Fudayl b. Yasar. He said: I heard Abu Ja`far عليه السلام saying: Whatever has not come out from this house, then it is false.
[ 33400 ] 19 ـ وعن أحمد بن محمد ، عن علي بن الحكم ، عن أبي بكر الحضرمي ، عن الحجاج بن الصباح ، قال : قلت لأبي جعفر ( (A) ) : إنا نحدث عنك بالحديث ، فيقول بعضنا : قولنا قولهم ، قال : فما تريد ؟ أتريد أن تكون إماما يقتدى بك ؟ ! من رد القول إلينا فقد سلم .
19 – And from Ahmad b. Muhammad from `Ali b. al-Hakam from Abu Bakr al-Hadrami from al-Hajjaj b. as-Sabbah. He said: I said to Abu Ja`far عليه السلام: Verily we narrate hadith from you, so some of us say: our saying is their saying. He said: And what do you intend? Do you intend to be an Imam, you being emulated? Whoever returns the saying back to us, then he is safe.
[ 33402 ] 21 ـ محمد بن أحمد بن علي في ( روضة الواعظين ) في قوله تعالى : ( اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبانهم أربابا من دون الله ) قال : روي عنه ( (A) ) : أنهم ما اتخذوهم أربابا في الحقيقة ، لكنهم دخلوا تحت طاعتهم ، فصاروا بمنزلة من اتخذهم أربابا .
21 – Muhammad b. Ahmad b. `Ali in Rawdat al-Wa`izhin in regards to His تعالى saying (i.e. verse) “They took their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from Allah”.  He said: It is narrated from him عليه السلام: Verily they did not take them as lords in reality; rather they entered under their obedience.  So they attained a status from their taking of them as lords.
 [ 33415 ] 34 ـ وحديث الحسين أنه سأل جعفر بن محمد ( (A) ) عن قوله تعالى : ( أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول واولي الأمر منكم ) قال : اولي العقل والعلم ، قلنا : أخاص ؟ أو عام ؟ قال : خاص لنا .
34 – And in the hadith of al-Husayn that he asked Ja`far b. Muhammad عليه السلام about His تعالى saying (i.e. verse) “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and the possessors of the command from you”. (4:59) He said: The possessors of intellect and knowledge.  We said: Is it specific or general?  He said: It is specific to us.
Let us be reminded that there is no dispute that Shias should refer to qualified scholars.
The current system of taqlid states that is wajib to follow a mujtahid in everyday rulings even to the extent that if someone had not been following a mujtahid his or her acts would consider invalid unless they were validated by a mujtahid. See the risalahs of Sistani, Khui, Makarem Shirazi, etc. as evidence.  This is some of what is being opposed.
Finding the most knowledgeable is impossible
How is one supposed to find the most knowledgeable scholar in this day and age when there is not a few marja'iyya but there are many and some of their works are not even translated such as ayatollah Modarressi’s? How would following them be possible for some?
In the system of taqlid, how is one supposed to determine the most knowledgeable scholar without being a scholar? Some answer that you should consult two reliable just experts. But what if these “experts” are mistaken? Afterall, if they were scholars of the highest level then they would be marja’iyya too. Furthermore, the system seems to fail since various experts will say that various marja’iyya are the most learned. For example, some will say Khamanei is the most learned, while others will say Makarem Shirazi, while others will say Sistani, and so on. How do we know which experts are right?
It is hypocritical to imitate in fiqh but not in belief
Some arguments often made for taqlid are there that there are a sum of thousands of hadiths as well as the many books written by scholars, and the lay person does not have the time nor the “expertise” to go through these books and derive the correct conclusion. If the lay person is supposedly unable to do this with fiqh, where on many issues where the majority of hadiths on a subject will simply agree on something and the others will often be interpreted as said in taqiyyah or otherwise, then how is a lay person supposed to derive the correct conclusions in aqeeda, where the very subject nature is more complex? To use the logic of those who defend taqlid, how is a lay person supposed to have the time and expertise to read the Quran, read the many hadiths on aqeeda in al-Kafi and Bihar al-Anwar, and to read through various ulema’s books?
It is not being advocated that people do taqid of basic beliefs such as the belief in Allah (SWT), but rather by playing devil’s advocate, the flaw in this argument for taqlid can be exposed, for how is a lay person supposed to determine other beliefs such as if istigaatha (calling upon other than Allah to help you) is permissible or shirk?
Is more than one scholar right?
When two scholars differ on an issue, are both of them right? If the answer given is yes because their ijtihad led them to different conclusions, then let us remember shaykh at-Tusi’s response:
This is what Al-Tusi has said concerning this phrase:
فذهب أكثر المتكلّمين و الفقهاء إلى أنّ كلّ مجتهد مصيب في اجتهاده و في الحكم، و هو مذهب أبي عليّ و أبي هاشم «1»، و أبي الحسن «2»، و أكثر المتكلّمين، و إليه ذهب أبو حنيفة و أصحابه فيما حكاه أبو الحسن «3» عنهم، و قد حكى غيره من العلماء عن أبي حنيفة لافه
Bold part is the slogan "Every Mujtahid is right in his ijtihad". Al-Tusi says this is the madhhab of Abu Hanifa, and talks harshly about this later on in the book.
(Source: Al-Tusi, Al-`Uddah, pg. 724 – 725)
Let us also remember the numerous ahadeeth that forbid worshipping a scholar, which some hadiths explain refers to following a scholar in their error. Here are a few from the chapter in Wasaa’il ash-Shia mentioned above:
[ 33389 ] 8 ـ وعنه ، عن أبيه وعن علي بن محمد ، عن صالح بن أبي حماد جميعاً ، عن ابن أبي عمير ، عن رجل ، عن أبي عبدالله ( (A) ) ، قال : من أطاع رجلا في معصية فقد عبده
8 – And from him from his father and from `Ali b. Muhammad from Salih b. Abi Hammad, all from Ibn Abi `Umayr from a man from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: Whoever obeyed a man in sin has worshiped him.
[ 33406 ] 25 ـ أحمد بن محمد البرقي في ( المحاسن ) عن أبيه ، عمن ذكره ، عن عمرو بن أبي المقدام ، عن رجل ، عن أبي جعفر ( (A) ) في قول الله : ( اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبانهم أربابا من دون الله ) قال : والله ما صلوا لهم ، ولا صاموا ، ولكن أطاعوهم في معصية الله .
25 – Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Barqi in al-Mahasin from his father from the one who he mentioned from `Amr b. Abi ‘l-Miqdam from a man from Abu Ja`far عليه السلام regarding the saying (verse) of Allah “they take their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah”. He said: By Allah, they did not pray to them nor did they fast, rather they obeyed them in sinning against Allah.
Now consider these two hadiths together:
[3] مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ رِئَابٍ عَنْ أَبِي عُبَيْدَةَ الْحَذَّاءِ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ   قَالَ مَنْ أَفْتَى النَّاسَ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَ لَا هُدًى لَعَنَتْهُ مَلَائِكَةُ الرَّحْمَةِ وَ مَلَائِكَةُ الْعَذَابِ وَ لَحِقَهُ وِزْرُ مَنْ عَمِلَ بِفُتْيَاهُ
Muhammad bin Yahya has narrated from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin ‘Isa from al-Hassan bin Mahbub from Ali bin al-Ri’ab from Abu ‘Ubayda al-Hadhdha’ from Abu Ja’far (A) who said: "The angels of mercy and the angels of wickedness condemn those who give to people fatwas without knowledge and guidance. Such people will be held responsible for the sins of all those who have followed such fatwas."
(source: al-Kulayni's al-Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 42, hadeeth #3. al-Majlisi grades this hadith as sahih in Miraat al-Uqool, vol. 1, pg. 137)
(24) حدثنا أحمد بن محمد (ثقة) عن الحسن بن علي [ الوشاء] عن أبي إسحاق ثعلبة (ثقة) عن أبي مريم (ثقة قال:(قال أبو جعفر (A) لسلمة بن كهيل والحكم بن عتيبة شرقا وغربا لن تجدا علما صحيحا الا شيئا يخرج من عندنا أهل البيت)
24 – Ahmad b. Muhammad (thiqa) from al-Hasan b. `Ali [al-Washsha] from Abu Ishaq Tha`laba (thiqa) from Abu Maryam (thiqa).  He said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said to Salama b. Kuhayl and al-Hakam b. `Utayba: (Even if you two) go East or West, you will never find sound knowledge but something that comes out from us, the People of the House.
(Source: Sahih Basa’ir ad-Darajat)

Is Deen so complicated?
Does it take 45-55 years to reach ijtihad like the lecturer said? It was amazing to hear this extraordinary claim. While this now may be the case with the changes in the Hawzas over the last few decades, there are people who reached ijtihaad much faster than “45-55 years”. Here are a few prominent names:
Sistani: (http://sistani.org/index.php?p=192257)
“This had been certificated by the late Ayatullah Khu'i and also by `Allamah shaykh Husayn Hilli who both had confirmed his being a Mujtahid through two separate certification dated 1960, in which the two Ayatullahs had appreciated his personality and knowledge. It is worthy to say that up to that date, Ayatullah Khou'i had never certificated any of his students' knowledge or Ijtihad, except for Ayatullah Sistani and Ayatullah shaykh Ali Falsafi (an eminent `alim in the Hawzah of Mashhad. On the other hand, the famous `Allamah shaykh Agha Buzurg Tehrani wrote a letter to Ayatullah Sistani in 1960 in which he eulogizing him for his intellectual talents on biography and hadith. This means that, our master, Ayatullah Sistani, had been granted his high scientific rank when he was only thirty-one years old.”
Rohani (http://www.emamrohani.net/home/?body=bio):
“The class relationship between the teacher and the student was in such a way that Ayatollah Khoei discussed the teaching matters with Ayatollah Rohani several times. Great Ayatollah Khoei praised the 15-year-old Rohani's great knowledge, comprehension power and briskness in learning (the full text of Ayatollah Khoei's manuscript can be found in this web site, which is also published in biography books in Arabic and Farsi). Verified by the great Ayatollah and religious authorities, Ayatollah Rohani reached the stage of "religious authority" being only 14 years old.”
Makarem Shirazi (http://english.makarem.ir/biography/?bid=2):
“It was here that he was able to take part in the classes of some of the greatest teachers such as: Ayatollah al-Uzma al-ajj as-Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakim, Ayatullah al-Uzma al-Hajj as-Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khui and Ayatollah al-Uzma al-Hajj Abdul Hadi ash-Shirazi and other great teachers (may Allah sanctify their spirits).At the age of 24, His Eminence was granted complete Ijtihad from two of the great scholars of Najaf al-Ashraf. In addition, Ayatollah al-Uzma al-Hajj as-Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakim even wrote a short, but comprehensive letter of commendation for His Eminence’s notes on the lessons of Fiqh (The Book of Taharah).”
And more scholars could be given, including Baqir as-Sadr, Tabrizi, etc.
Muhammad Shirazi (http://imamshirazi.com/imamshirazi.html):
"In the course of his training he showed a remarkable talent and appetite for learning as well as a tireless commitment to his work and the cause he believed in. His extraordinary ability, and effort, earned him the recognition, by his father and other Marje's and scholars, of being a Mujtahid; a qualified religious scholar in the sciences of Islamic jurisprudence and law. He was subsequently able to assume the office of the Marje' at the early age of 33 in 1961. His followers are found in many countries around the globe."
It is amazing how many companions of the Imams were men with simple professions, such as Muhammed bin Yahya who was a perfume-seller, yet now somehow we need geniuses who study for “45-55 years” before the Deen can be understood, and even then these ulema contradict each other in their ijtihaad!
Should we do taqlid because we do it in other areas of our life?
It was ironically argued that taqlid is necessary in Deen because we do taqlid in some other areas of our lives. For example, when we go to the doctor, we blindly accept and follow what we are told by that single doctor. However this is justification through qiyas which is haram. If something has no basis in the Quran and Sunnah, then it cannot be post-justified with qiyas.
Who started taqlid?
This concept of taqlid and ijtihad was condemned heavily by our classical scholars until muhaqiq al-Hilli and allamah al-Hilli made it a standard. Sometimes even in his book allamah al-Hilli would quote from Al-Shaafi` (the founder of one of the four Sunni madhabs). Basically showing that this concept of taqlid and ijtihad is a sunnee concept. That is why al-Astraabaadi, the founder of the Akhbaris, criticized allamah al-Hilli, saying it is a Sunnee concept.
Let us remember that no-one said we should not go to a scholar for our questions.
The famous slogan that is heard even today "All Mujtahids are right". Which means whichever you follow, and if their ruling happens to be wrong, you aren't "punished", because all mujtahids are right in their own way.
This is what Al-Tusi has said concerning this phrase:
فذهب أكثر المتكلّمين و الفقهاء إلى أنّ كلّ مجتهد مصيب في اجتهاده و في الحكم، و هو مذهب أبي عليّ و أبي هاشم «1»، و أبي الحسن «2»، و أكثر المتكلّمين، و إليه ذهب أبو حنيفة و أصحابه فيما حكاه أبو الحسن «3» عنهم، و قد حكى غيره من العلماء عن أبي حنيفة لافه
Bold part is the slogan "Every Mujtahid is right in his ijtihad". Al-Tusi says this is the madhhab of Abu Hanifa, and talks harshly about this later on in the book.
(Source: Al-Tusi, Al-`Uddah, vol. 724 – 725)
Now here is allamah al-Hilli bringing in the concept of taqlid and ijtihad:
الفقه لغة الفهم و عرفا العلم بالحكام الشرعية الفرعية المستدل على أعيانها بحيثلا يعلم كونها من الدين ضرورة فخرج العلم بالذوات و بالحكام العقيلة وكون الاجماع و خبر الواحد حجة و علم المقلد و الاصول الضرورة كالصلاة و الزكوة
"Fiqh, in its basic linguistic meaning, is understanding. Concentionally, it is knowledge of detailed Shari`ah values the status of which is inferred in so far as their being part of religion is not known by Darooratan (immediate certain knowledge). Hence (the following) are excluded: knowledge of essence, of rational (`aql), ijmaa`, or khabar al-waaHid (single khabar) are valid proofs in legal matters, the knowledge of the muqallid and the usool al-Durooriyyah (principle premise) such as Salaah and zakaah.
(Source: Allamah al-Hilli, Tahdheeb Al-WuSool 'ilaa `ilm Al-uSool, pg. 2b-3a (preface))
It can be seen that he has used the word "muqallid" referring to a person who is in taqlid. Taqlid was heavily criticized pre-Hilli.
Relatively the same thing is said in his taHreer Al-aHkaam.
العلم بالأحكام الشّرعية الفرعيّة المستدل على أعيانها بحيث لا يعلم كونها من الدّين ضرورة فخرج العلم بالذوات و الأحكام العقليّة و النقلية و التقليدية و علم واجب الوجود و الملائكة و أصول الشريعة و لا يرد إطلاق الفقيه على العالم بالبعض و كون الفقه مظنونا لأنّ المراد بالعلم الاستعداد التامّ المستند إلى أصول معلومة و ظنيّة الطّريق لا تنافي علميّة الحكم
(Source: Allamah al-Hilli, TaHreer Al-aHkaam, vol. 1, pg. 2)
And He brought this new philosophy, that if you do not follow you mujtahid's Hukm (judgment) then you are in the wrong.
و على التقديرين، فالحكم معيّن، و كان تاركه مخطيا
"(if) a practice juristic Hukm (judgment) was established and anyone who neglected it was in error (mukhti')"
(Source: `Allamah al-Hilli, Tahdheeb Al-WuSool 'ilaa `ilm Al-uSool, pg. 2b-3a (preface) and `Allamah al-Hilli, Mabaadi' Al-WuSool, pg. 245)
 This philosophy is still found: if your marja' says something you must follow it! You can't question. This is what many people say.
And here is al-Hilli's definition of ijtihad, which is practically the modern definition we now know:
الاجتهاد: هو استفراغ الوسع في النّظر، فيما هو من المسائل الظنيّة الشرعيّة،
(Source: Allamah al-Hilli, Mabaadi', pg. 240)
Here he says that the faqih expends his efforts to derive a ruling of Shari`ah.
و كذلك لا يجوز لأحد من الأئمة عليهم السلام الاجتهاد عندنا، لأنّهم معصومون، و إنّما أخذوا الأحكام بتعليم الرسول (A)، أو بإلهام من اللَّه تعالى. و أما العلماء فيجوز لهم الاجتهاد، باستنباط الأحكام من العمومات، في القرآن و السنة، و بترجيح الأدلة  المتعارضة. أما بأخذ الحكم من القياس و الاستحسان فلا.
(Source: Allamah al-Hilli, Mabaadi', pg. 241)
Here, allamah al-Hilli says that the Prophet and Imams could not do ijtihad as they were infallible, but the ulema can.
What is the historical position of the faqih?
As can be seen in many narrations hadiths, the companions of the Imams would be tasked with disseminating their teachings, their saying to the Shia. This is how the hadiths were passed down, spread and preserved, and this is what the early Shia would do. Unlike today, the hadiths were not the special domain of a select class of people, they were for all of the Shia. A “faqih” was someone who had learned many of these hadiths and would teach them to others. It didn’t necessarily mean that is all they would do, that they were some separate class who had that as their job. Rather, these would often be ordinary men who held ordinary jobs, merchants, laborers, etc., but who would be known to have in their preserve the teachings of the Imams , and thus they would be a faqih. For example:
1- حمدويه بن نصير الكشي، قال حدثنا محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب، عن محمد بن سنان، عن حذيفة بن منصور، عن أبي عبد الله ((A)) قال : اعرفوا منازل الرجال منا على قدر رواياتهم عنا.
1 – Hamdawayh b. Nusayr al-Kashshi said: Muhammad b. al-Husayn b. Abi ‘l-Khattab narrated to us from Muhammad b. Sinan from Hudhayfa b. Mansur from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: Recognize the ranks of the rijal from us by the amount of their narrations from us.
2- محمد بن سعد الكشي بن مزيد و أبو جعفر محمد بن أبي عوف البخاري، قالا حدثنا أبو علي محمد بن أحمد بن حماد المروزي المحمودي، رفعه، قال : قال الصادق ((A)) اعرفوا منازل شيعتنا بقدر ما يحسنون من رواياتهم عنا، فإنا لا نعد الفقيه منهم فقيها حتى يكون محدثا.
فقيل له أ و يكون المؤمن محدثا قال يكون مفهما و المفهم محدث.
2 – Muhammad b. Sa`d al-Kashshi b. Mazid and Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Abi `Awf al-Bukhari said: Abu `Ali Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Hammad al-Maruszi al-Mahmudi narrated to us going up to him. He said: as-Sadiq عليه السلام said: Recognize the ranks of our Shia by the amount of what they excel in their narrations from us, for verily we do not count the faqih from them to be a faqih until he is a muhaddith.
So it was said to him: And is the believer a muhaddith? He said: He is a mufahhim (one who understands) and the mufahhim is a muhaddith.
The very title of shaykh as-Sadooq’s book, which is one of the four main books, should show us what their attitude to these things were “whoever does not have the faqih present” (man la yahdhuru al-faqih). The idea was that if a faqih wasn’t available to narrate to you the appropriate hadith on your question, then you could use this book and look up the hadith yourself. Clearly shaykh as-Sadooq did not think this Deen took 45-55 years of study before one could read the hadiths and see the correct ruling.
Thus the point in referring to the fuqaha (faqihs) was not that we should be doing taqlid to any of these fuqaha; taqlid to scholars other than the Imams themselves was considered to be haram for centuries. As seen above, the chapter in al-Kafi called “the chapter of taqlid” is precisely about this. It was difficult in fact to find sections on taqlid in our fiqh books for centuries (i.e. other than where they would denounce it as a Sunni heresy), which is sufficient evidence that this concept only became widespread fairly later. The point of referring to the fuqaha was for one to learn the teachings of the Imams yourself, so that you could follow them, that is, the Imams.
Even the hadith from Imam al-Mahdi which was quoted in the lecture in defence of taqlid actually tells us to refer to the narrators of hadiths, which has been twisted to mean something rather far off from what it’s saying. Why not simply understand the hadith literally? That is, since the Imam will not be accessible to you in this time period, neither in going to visit him or write to him yourself, nor by sending a question to his safir/representative like in the minor ghayba, so you go to those individuals who narrate the hadiths of the Imams. Why? Well seems pretty obvious that you would do so because they could then narrate the hadiths to you…
People would be surprised if they found out how very extensive and detailed our hadiths really are. For the vast majority of issues that come up it’s simply a matter of looking up the appropriate hadith and the answer is right there before you. This really isn’t some complex science that requires many decades to master. It is actually straightforward, as religion aught to be. However, today’s Shias think such matters are the exclusive preserve of an exclusive class of people, that they are somehow all incapable of learning these things and thus must entrust all of their responsibility over to said select class. But is that class actually doing the primary job of the faqih? Are today’s fuqaha actually narrating the hadiths to you? Some do, inshaAllah, but we all know that in the majority of cases you will not get that. What you might not know is how so many so-called scholars of today cannot tell you what the hadith for an issue is because they don’t know it themselves… But even if they did, still the knowledge of this is absent from most Shias. How competent would we say a teacher was, regardless of how brilliant he might be himself, if almost none of his students actually learned the material of his course? The problem is this system that demarcates such an extreme distinction between laity and scholar.
What about new issues? Don't we need ijtihad?
The Usooli answer would be that the mujtahid should apply his ijtihad and figure out an answer to pass a fatwa with, which you as a non-mujtahid in his taqlid are then bound to follow. The problem here though is that if there is no clear nass, text, specifying that answer, whatever answer the mujtahid gives you is bound to be something based on his own speculation, nor on certainty. Mujtahid X and Mujtahid Y might end up giving you two different answers because they are relying of their own powers of deduction, and being fallible without having access to ilham or what have you, they can thus make mistakes as we can see in the variety of different opinions that can exist amongst different maraji`. But is this what the Imams taught us to do in the cases where we don’t know the answer to a problem?
[ 33156 ] 6 ـ وعنه ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن الوشاء ، عن مثنى الحناط ، عن أبي بصير ، قال : قلت لابي عبدالله ( (A) ) : ترد علينا أشياء ليس نعرفها في كتاب الله ( ولا سنته ) فننظر فيها ؟ فقال : لا أما أنك إن أصبت لم توجر ، وإن أخطأت كذبت على الله .
ورواه البرقي في ( المحاسن ) عن الوشاء مثله .
6 - And from him from Ahmad b. Muhammad from al-Washsha from Muthanna the stuffer from Abu Baseer. He said: I said to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام: Things come to us which we do not recognize from the book of Allah nor his Sunna [nor a Sunna – in al-Kafi], so we speculate in it. So he said: No, should you hit the mark you are not rewarded and should you be mistaken you would have lied against Allah.
And al-Barqi narrated it in al-Mahasin from al-Washsha likewise.
[ 33102 ] 3 ـ وعن علي بن إبراهيم ، عن محمد بن عيسى ، عن يونس ابن عبد الرحمن ، عن عبد الرحمن بن الحجاج ، قال : قال لي أبو عبدالله ( (A) ) : إياك وخصلتين ففيهما هلك من هلك : إياك أن تفتي الناس برأيك ، أو تدين بما لا تعلم .
ورواه البرقي في ( المحاسن ) عن ابيه ، عن عبدالله بن المغيرة ، عن عبد الرحمن بن الحجاج (1) .
ورواه الصدوق في ( الخصال ) عن أبيه ، عن علي بن ابراهيم (2) ، والذي قبله عن أبيه ، عن محمد بن يحيى مثله .
3 – And from `Ali b. Ibrahim from Muhammad b. `Isa from Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman from `Abd ar-Rahman b. al-Hajjaj. He said: Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام said to me: Beware you of two characteristics, for in them has been destroyed (he) who has been destroyed: Beware that you issue fatwa to the people by your view (ra’y, opinion), or that you profess by what you do not know.
And al-Barqi narrated it in al-Mahasin from his father from `Abdullah b. al-Mughira fom `Abd ar-Rahman b. al-Hajjaj.
So what are they to do then? Well, here’s an idea: why don’t they simply say they don’t know the answer to this question… Why do we feel it so necessary that a fallible, a non-Imam, should have to be able to come up with an answer to everything? Sure, it might seem more comforting to you to receive a yes or no answer, but what if the answer is wrong? Or what if since the scholar had not clear certain text to go by, he based his answer on speculation? Who then are you really following, God or a fallible? Why would it be so terrible for the faqih in these cases to say “I have no clear text on this issue thus I cannot tell you what God’s law is in this matter since I am not myself the Lawgiver.” He might furthermore recommend precaution in it, informing the questioner of the safest route to choose, but why is it a good thing for him to be giving an answer to what God’s law is when in fact he really doesn’t know that?
[ 33104 ] 5 ـ وعن عدة من أصحابنا ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد ، عن الحسن بن علي الوشاء ، عن أبان الأحمر ، عن زياد بن أبي رجاء ، عن أبي جعفر ( (A) ) ، قال : ما علمتم فقولوا ، وما لم تعلموا فقولوا : الله أعلم ، إن الرجل لينتزع الاية (1) ، يخر فيها أبعد ما بين السماء . [ والارض ] (2) .
ورواه البرقي في ( المحاسن ) عن الوشاء مثله (3) .
5 – And from a number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid from al-Hasan b. `Ali al-Washsha from Aban al-Ahmar from Ziyad b. Abu Raja from Abu Ja`far عليه السلام. He said: What you know, then say, and what you do not know, then say “Allah knows best”. Verily the man extracts an aya [from the Quran – in al-Kafi], he falls further in it than what is between heaven and earth.
And al-Barqi narrated its like in al-Mahasin from al-Washsha.
So what is the believer to do in these cases? Well, for that there are two possible routes, neither of which include making decrees as to what they think Allah’s law is (since they don’t actually know that). One, they halt on the issue without a decree being passed and take the safest path, ensuring they are not falling into sin:
[ 33108 ] 9 ـ وعن الحسين بن محمد ، عن معلى بن محمد ، عن علي ابن أسباط ، عن جعفر بن سماعة ، عن غير واحد ، ( عن أبان ) (1) ، عن زرارة ابن أعين ، قال : سألت أبا جعفر ( (A) ) : ما حق الله على العباد ؟ قال : أن يقولوا ما يعلمون ، ويقفوا عند ما لا يعلمون .
9 – And from al-Husayn b. Muhammad from Mu`alla b. Muhammad from `Ali b. Asbat from Ja`far b. Sama`a from more than one [from Aban] from Zurara b. A`yan. He said: I asked Abu Ja`far عليه السلام: What is the right of Allah upon the servants? He said: That they say what they know, and stop at what they do not know.
 [ 33109 ] 10 ـ وعن علي بن إبراهيم ، عن أبيه ، عن ابن أبي عمير ، عن هشام بن سالم قال : قلت لأبي عبدالله ( (A) ) : ما حق الله على خلقه ؟ قال : أن يقولوا ما يعلمون ، ويكفوا عما لا يعلمون ، فاذا فعلوا ذلك فقد أدوا إلى الله حقه .
10 – And from `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from Hisham b. Salim. He said: I said to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام: What is the right of Allah upon His creation? He said: That they say what they know, and halt at what they do not know. So if they do that, then they have rendered unto Allah His right.
وعن محمد بن يحيى ، عن محمد بن الحسين ، عن محمد بن عيسى ، عن صفوان بن يحيى ، عن داود بن الحصين ، عن عمر ابن حنظلة ، عن أبي عبدالله ( (A) ) ـ في حديث ـ قال : وإنما الامور ثلاثة : أمر بين رشده فيتبع ، وأمر بين غيه فيجتنب ، وأمر مشكل يرد علمه إلى الله ( وإلى رسوله ) (1). قال رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) : حلال بيّن ، وحرام بيّن ، وشبهات بين ذلك ، فمن ترك الشبهات نجا من المحرمات ، ومن أخذ بالشبهات ارتكب المحرمات ، وهلك من حيث لا يعلم ، ثم قال في آخر الحديث : فان الوقوف عند الشبهات خير من الاقتحام في الهلكات.
Muhammad b. Yaqub from Muhammad b. Yahya from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from Muhammad b. `Isa from Safwan b. Yahya from Dawud b. al-HuSayn from `Umar b. Hanzhala from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام in a hadith wherein he said: And the affairs (or, commands) are only three: An affair whose righteousness is clear so it is followed, and an affair whose sin is clear so it is avoided, and a problematic affair whose knowledge is returned back to Allah and to His Messenger. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله said: Halal is clear and haram is clear, and uncertainties are between that. So whoever abandons the uncertainties is saved from the prohibitions, and whoever takes the uncertainties commits the prohibitions and is destroyed from whence he knows not. Then he said in the end of the hadith: So verily halting with uncertainties is better than storming into destruction.
The other perspective would be that man is not held responsible for what he does not and cannot know. Thus, you are a liberty to make your choice in these things, and so long as you do it in good faith you are not going to be held accountable for what you couldn’t know the answer to as a matter of divine justice and grace