Taqleed Forbidden Acc. To Ali And Jafar Al-sadiq

[.InshAllah. 1,561]

Let me break it down for you, as I dont think that you understand your own objection. Your first objection was that taqlid means blind following. Your proof for this was a few definitions. However none of these definitions say that taqlid is blind following. So you havent established that it is. I went further and gave you a positive argument to show that taqlid doesnt mean blind following by showing how you can have good reasons to do taqlid of another. And then I went further still and showed that even if taqlid was blind following (in the sense of imitating someone without knowing if they were the most knowledgeable) then that can also be okay. Your reply was ''worst logical fallacy ever''.

1. You stated previously "For example, if all of the knowledgeable and trustworthy people tell me its right then this is good evidence of its truth."

This is actually not always true. What if the scholar I follow goes against this majority opinion and his ruling is opposite to it and he has actual evidence to substantiate his ruling?

By saying that its 'not always true' you are admitting that its sometimes true. And if you feel that a scholar has better reasons for his ruling then thats a good reason to follow him.

There are some rulings I agree with and some I don't agree with , therefore does it make sense for someone to claim that you can only do taqleed to only one scholar?

You will find scholars who say you can do taqlid of more than one scholar. Without claiming that this is wrong, let me give you a potential problem with this. Each scholar derives rules based on the Usul (principles) they use, and which narrators they regard as trustworthy. Scholars differ on this. If you follow more than one scholar you'll be following rulings based on more than one set of incompatible Usul. So you seem to be guaranteed to be following rules based on false Usul, because there's a guaranteed inconsistency in them.

Did you know that knowledgable and trustworthy scholars have rulings that are antithetical to one another? There is no evidence whatsoever. Sunni's are the majority and in prayer they fold their arms. Are you going to say that because the majority fold their arms in prayer, this is good evidence of it's truth? See? Your statement is riddled with fallacies.

I have good reasons to believe that Sunnism is wrong, so no Im not going to follow their scholars, because I have good reason to believe that theyre not reliable.

See, it's absurd examples like this that are the disease in society. Extremely black and White. Lack of rigorous analytical skills. Doctors are something different as they are unanimous on their medical expertise. There is no sin or double standards involved. Medicine is a a divergent context.

You made the claim that we need to know all of the strong and weak points of scholars to make a judgement on who to follow. This is completely unsubstantiated like everything else you've argued. The point of the medical example is that you dont need to know all of the details to decide on an expert.

If I already have a preconceived notion of what is right, obviously I will follow the scholar who conforms best to MY line of thinking, no matter how screwed up it is. This goes on like a game of politics. If each one chooses a color of the rainbow and claims to be rightly guided, then we all are right, somehow. Sadly, I don't think religion is supposed to be PLAYED like this.

The aim of the muqallid is to follow the correct rules. So when deciding on a marji, they want to choose the one who they believe is most likely to give them maximal number of correct rulings. If the muqallid after having researched is sure that certain things are right, and he finds scholars who are giving rulings that contradict this, then obviously it makes sense to avoid those scholars.

Right, so you admit it. So you inadvertently admit that taqleed is blind following.

I could be following scholar A on a certain issue, but scholar B might actually be right. Hence I am 'blindly following' scholar A.

The conclusion just doesnt follow.

1. I follow scholar A

2. There's a possibility that Scholar A is wrong

3. Therefore I'm blindly following scholar A.

3 just doesnt follow at all from 1 and 2.

Now let's be practical. Here's a scenario: I perform temporary marriage without consent of parents, contract ends. After that, I do temporary marriage with someone else, but this time I inform the parents. I did two contradictory acts that two Shia scholars issued a fatwa on.

What would you say?

I want to know how this scenario undermines taqlid. Is it because the sources of taqlid offer contradictory rulings? But thats not right, because reason often offers contradictory conclusions, and that doesnt undermine reason. So why dont you clarify exactly what the problem is.

Edited December 30, 2011 by .InshAllah.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

I think it's best if you just read my thread: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234994955-absurdity-with-taqleed/

I'd basically be repeating everything i said in there. This will just be a circular discussion.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

Changed my mind. I'll answer this.

Let me break it down for you, as I dont think that you understand your own objection. Your first objection was that taqlid means blind following. Your proof for this was a few definitions. However none of these definitions say that taqlid is blind following. So you havent established that it is. I went further and gave you a positive argument to show that taqlid doesnt mean blind following by showing how you can have good reasons to do taqlid of another. And then I went further still and showed that even if taqlid was blind following (in the sense of imitating someone without knowing if they were the most knowledgeable) then that can also be okay. Your reply was ''worst logical fallacy ever''.

Look, the very definition of the word taqleed exemplifies 'blind following'. If you say we do not follow blindly, this claim is contradictory to the definition of the title.

I am talking about issues of which scholars do not have a unanimous opinion upon, so your counterexample doesn't even work here.

By saying that its 'not always true' you are admitting that its sometimes true. And if you feel that a scholar has better reasons for his ruling then thats a good reason to follow him.

I was wrong here because i am reffering to issues that are not unanimously agreed upon.

How could i possibly see if a scholar has better reasons for his ruling when taqleed > following someone without knowing the evidence or reason.

You will find scholars who say you can do taqlid of more than one scholar. Without claiming that this is wrong, let me give you a potential problem with this. Each scholar derives rules based on the Usul (principles) they use, and which narrators they regard as trustworthy. Scholars differ on this. If you follow more than one scholar you'll be following rulings based on more than one set of incompatible Usul. So you seem to be guaranteed to be following rules based on false Usul, because there's a guaranteed inconsistency in them.

So this means that if I follow one particular scholar who has some rules based on false usul, i am blindly following him. If i follow the rules of this scholar will i go to hell? If i follow more than one scholar, even if their exists inconsistency, will it lead me to hell?

I have good reasons to believe that Sunnism is wrong, so no Im not going to follow their scholars, because I have good reason to believe that theyre not reliable.

I was just giving you an example, don't take it so literally. Read between the lines. Anyway, there doesn't exist a majority opinion on issues that are not unanimous, so your 'proof' that taqleed isn't blind following is not true.

You made the claim that we need to know all of the strong and weak points of scholars to make a judgement on who to follow. This is completely unsubstantiated like everything else you've argued. The point of the medical example is that you dont need to know all of the details to decide on an expert.

Right there, in bold, is an example of blind following. You trust a scholar without knowing his level of expertise in a particular field and blindly follow his ruling, even though it could be wrong.

The aim of the muqallid is to follow the correct rules. So when deciding on a marji, they want to choose the one who they believe is most likely to give them maximal number of correct rulings. If the muqallid after having researched is sure that certain things are right, and he finds scholars who are giving rulings that contradict this, then obviously it makes sense to avoid those scholars.

Right, so this is picking and choosing. This is not blind following. This would be using scholars as a reference in order to ascertain, with the ability of intellect and reasoning, what ruling amongst scholars makes the most sense and infer a decision from that.

The conclusion just doesnt follow.

1. I follow scholar A

2. There's a possibility that Scholar A is wrong

3. Therefore I'm blindly following scholar A.

3 just doesnt follow at all from 1 and 2.

Why? Elaborate on this. Don't leave it hanging.

I want to know how this scenario undermines taqlid. Is it because the sources of taqlid offer contradictory rulings? But thats not right, because reason often offers contradictory conclusions, and that doesnt undermine reason. So why dont you clarify exactly what the problem is.

If you truly want know what the problem is, read my thread:

http://www.shiachat....y-with-taqleed/

AND ---

answer this dilemma on the permission from wali in order to perform mut'ah :

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haydar Husayn, on 23 December 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

Yes, but according to other marjas you don't need permission in any case.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ImAli:

I could smell a war brewing if the girls family follows a marja the requires permission if she is not rashida.....and the man follows a marja that doesn't require permission.

Things could get wild really fast LOL

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[.InshAllah. 1,561]

Look, the very definition of the word taqleed exemplifies 'blind following'. If you say we do not follow blindly, this claim is contradictory to the definition of the title.

I am talking about issues of which scholars do not have a unanimous opinion upon, so your counterexample doesn't even work here.

None of your definitions entail that its blind following. Roughly stated, blind following is following another for no good reason. Our following Ahlul Bayt is not blind following because we know they are God's representatives on Earth, eventhough we dont know the actual reasons for many of the rulings. Whether or not there is unanimous opinion doesnt change the definition of taqlid.

How could i possibly see if a scholar has better reasons for his ruling when taqleed > following someone without knowing the evidence or reason.

I mentioned better reasons because you referred to a scholar who has evidence for his ruling despite being in a minority. My point was that, if you thought that he really did have good evidence, then that would be a reason to follow him.

So this means that if I follow one particular scholar who has some rules based on false usul, i am blindly following him. If i follow the rules of this scholar will i go to hell? If i follow more than one scholar, even if their exists inconsistency, will it lead me to hell?

No it doesnt mean that youre blindly following, only that you made the wrong choice.

Right, so this is picking and choosing. This is not blind following. This would be using scholars as a reference in order to ascertain, with the ability of intellect and reasoning, what ruling amongst scholars makes the most sense and infer a decision from that.

The reason for taqlid is that we dont all have time to engage in this sort of enquiry, at least not for every ruling. So even if we can do that to a good enough leve for some rulings, for others we'd have to refer to scholars.

Why? Elaborate on this. Don't leave it hanging.

As a matter of deductive logic 3 doesnt follow from 1 and 2. To make it a valid argument you'd need to add other premises. Here's an example of what you might do.

1. I follow Scholar A's rulings

2. Theres a possibility that Scholar A's rulings are wrong.

3. Therefore there a possibility that the rulings that Im following are wrong

4. If theres a possibility that the rulings that Im following are wrong, then Im following blindly

5. Therefore, Im following blindly.

The problem is that theres no reason to accept 4.

If you truly want know what the problem is, read my thread:

http://www.shiachat....y-with-taqleed/

You'd think that in all of your posts on this thread you should have managed to 'truly' explain what the problem is. Sorry but Im dont have the time to go through all of the posts in the other thread.

answer this dilemma on the permission from wali in order to perform mut'ah :

Already done in my previous post.

[MAK 9]

Well, this is what I keep parroting. The system shouldn't be called taqleed, it should be called rajoo'. It should be called a reference. We're not emulating anyone, we're just using the various scholars as a reference to decide whatever ruling we find logical and rational in our own perspective. This us how it's supposed to be, but most Shia have been duped into believing these absurd implementations on how taqleed should be approached.

I agree 100%, and I think most "Ayatollahs" as you refer to them, agree as well. I mean, what is the technical name of these "Ayatollahs"? Is it not "Maraji'"? Ergo, it is all about Rajoo', as you put it. But you know, when discussing matters like these, it is important to be wise enough and acknowledge semantics for semantics. Whether someone calls it taqleed, rajoo' or football, at the end of the day it's just semantics, we have to focus on the intent.

So, if your goal is to discuss people's UNDERSTANDING and PRACTICE of "Taqleed/Rajoo'", then be sure to make that clear from the get go, in order to avoid dragging people into never ending semantic debates.

Anyway, that being said, I agree with the core of what you're saying. A lot of shias are duped and don't REALLY understand taqleed. They think it's like cheering for a soccer team. You pick one you like and stick to your choice forever, lol. And I think the "Taqleed" our holy Imams are talking about and forbidding is fundamentally different than what our modern day "Taqleed" is(or supposed to be). I don't think you'll find one single Marja' who'll say that his teachings are absolute and should be followed unless you want to go to hell. I'm sure most marjas encourage seeking knowledge and educating yourself as much as you can on any particular subject. So, there is no fallacy in regards to the CONCEPT of modern day "Taqleed/Rujoo'".

The problem is of course how people choose to understand and PRACTICE it. You know, if someone asks me "Who do you do taqleed to", I'd probably answer "most of the big maraji", and I'd end up giving whoever was asking a heart attack. Whenever I am in doubt about something, I look up fatwas from most of the well known marajis. I usually check Sistani, Fadlullah and Khaminei. If I also manage to find fatwas from Ayatollah Khoei then that's great!.. After reading through these fatwas, I usually have enough background information to reach a conclusion on what I should do. Some people might say that it shouldnt be that complicated, and that I should stick to one marja' in order to save time and all that. Which is understandable. What I don't get though, is when people SWEAR to one marja' over all the others, and completely ignore the fact that they have to do some thinking for themselves as well. I can't blindly swear to anyone, as per the orders of our Holy Book and, our Prophet and our Imams. I take all opinions into considerations, I have no way of ascertaining who of the big marjas is "most knowledgeable", thus I will not insult my own intelligence by attempting to proclaim that one is. I also acknowledge the fact that a dentist knows more about oral hygiene than an islamic scholar, and I will not bother checking if a medicine that is prescribed to me is deemed "halal" by a certain scholar, simply because the dentist is in fact more knowledgeable in the field.

I remember I once heard that Ayatollah Khaminei had issued a fatwa on drawing, saying that it is haram because you're contesting in creation. I laughed and did not pay any attention to that. First of all, I can't be sure if the fatwa is authentic, or if someone was just making stuff up. Second, as long as my intention is not to challenge the almighty, then I'm good in my opinion, regardless of the authenticity of the fatwa. This is an instance where I decide to follow my own sense of logic, instead of a scholar's ruling. Furthermore, I feel that such a ruling, if it is authentic, is based on an insult to creation imo, as comparing lines on a paper to real creation is pathetic, and in no way are you able to compete with God's complex and intricate biological systems. I know people who would've burned all their sketch books upon hearing about the fatwa. That is an improper way of doing taqleed imo.

Wassalm :D

[Ruq 6,264]

Does anyone know why marjas dont explain their rulings? Its very frustrating and in this day and age, when they have easy access websites i dont understand why they cant give references and explain at least some of their rulings.

[cc_30 223]

Does anyone know why marjas dont explain their rulings? Its very frustrating and in this day and age, when they have easy access websites i dont understand why they cant give references and explain at least some of their rulings.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234967760-taqlid-evidance-based-religion/

[Ali_Hussain 6,042]

Does anyone know why marjas dont explain their rulings? Its very frustrating and in this day and age, when they have easy access websites i dont understand why they cant give references and explain at least some of their rulings.

I think with strict taqlid,you just are not supposed to ask.

There are some books where you can find some answers

http://www.al-islam.org/falsafa/

But I think for arabic speaker there is more in the form of dars al-kharaj lectures.

Or this, some narrations by Imam al-Ridha (a) about the reasons behind certain things

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/hadith/uyun_akhbar_al_reza_2/02.htm

[cc_30 223]

I have a question for brother Ahlul-Bayt, if he and brother InshaAllah do not mind the intrusion:

Surely you offered your fajr salat this morning. Since you are against blind following and believe that fatawa should be accepted based on evidence, can you show us the evidence you have accepted for the following, which is just the beginning of fajr salat:

1) How did you decide whether to recite your surahs audibly or silently?

2) How did you decide to recite part of a surah or the whole surah after you recite fatiha?

3) How did you decide whether you can recite one surah/part of a surah or more than one after fatiha?

Edited December 31, 2011 by cc_30

[Abu Hadi 9,692]

Changed my mind. I'll answer this.

Look, the very definition of the word taqleed exemplifies 'blind following'. If you say we do not follow blindly, this claim is contradictory to the definition of the title.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Most muslims here, including myself, want to follow Islam as taught by us Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt(a.s) in the correct way. In the world of no taqleed, what alternative to you propose to reach this goal.... ? A realistic one ...

[Ruq 6,264]

I think with strict taqlid,you just are not supposed to ask.

=\ why not? Thats kind of unhealthy. Thank you for the info.

Im not sure what the big issue is here tbh. We need to know marjas opinions so we know what they agree on. As regards the things they dont agree on we can research to our capacity, but there is also a principle that if you trust your marja in good faith they take blame for their mistake (rather than you) when it comes to the judgement, is that not right? Perhaps if enough ppl petition thier marjas for explanation of their rulings a culture will be created where this readily happens, esp with the younger/up and coming scholars.

[Awaiting_for_the12th 292]

=\ why not? Thats kind of unhealthy. Thank you for the info.

Im not sure what the big issue is here tbh. We need to know marjas opinions so we know what they agree on. As regards the things they dont agree on we can research to our capacity, but there is also a principle that if you trust your marja in good faith they take blame for their mistake (rather than you) when it comes to the judgement, is that not right? Perhaps if enough ppl petition thier marjas for explanation of their rulings a culture will be created where this readily happens, esp with the younger/up and coming scholars.

that probably wont be happening and thats a good thing. Marjas dont need to explain their rulings. Sometimes some Marjas do give explanation for example Aya. Sistani office gave me an explanation for my questions.

Lets say that a Marja gave ruling on banning ciggarettes and they derived this looking through all of Quranic verses pertaining to that issue then referring to 100s of Hadiths and other scientific sources etc. Do they really have to give you all their research for banning cigs? Even if they give their reasoning, do we have enough knowledge to understand how rulings are derived. For example, kurr water is 42 cubic, the reason to reach that number obviously involves other factors to then just Quran or Hadiths. There is a reason Marja's spend decades of studying in Hawza to become "specialist" in these fields.

It would be retarded for a middle schooler to go up to a Rocket scientist and ask for his references for the dynamics of a rocket.

Most of us are ignorant of religion, we dont understand Quran, and Hadiths completely.

[MAFHJ 185]

Salaam,

Some people here keep saying that they want an explanation of how the maraja' deduced their fatawa so that they can decide which fatwa is correct in their eyes. This has been answered (in a question form) by cc_30 in his last post in a simple way so that people realize what they are saying is illogical. You want the maraja' to explain to you how they came up with their fatawa? How many of you know Arabic for the very least? How many of you know all the concepts and terms that are needed in order to understand the basics of how they came up with their fatawa? How many of you have atleast read the Qur'an once from cover to cover? How many of you know what to look for in the Qur'an and the ahadith in order to understand what the marja' is referring to? I can go on and on, this is still the basic stuff.

There is a reason when you read the resalah's of the maraja', they tell you to refer to the ahlul khibra to determine who is most knowledgeable amongst the scholars. If you look at some of the resalahs they define ahlul khibra as the scholars who have studied bahith kharij, because those scholars are acquainted with the research of the scholars and have studied their books for years, and are able to determine based on their research which scholar is most learned to them. In the bahith kharij classes, after the intro-mid level courses where you learn the concepts, terms, and the science of qur'an, hadith, usul, etc., you are able to comprehend "how they determine their fatawa." When referring to ahlul khibra, the people you refer to should have knowledge in this field so that they may guide you to who is most knowledgeable.

So I suggest you think a little before you make statements like "we're just using the various scholars as a reference to decide whatever ruling we find logical and rational in our own perspective", and insist that the maraja' explain their rulings so that we can decide which one is correct, and that taqleed is blind following (that's because you are blind (since you insist on using that term), blind (ignorant) from all the requirments needed to come up with a fatwa yourself, and the requirements/prerequisites needed to be able to distinguish which fatwa is correct, and which scholar is most knowledgeable)). Take the above and what some members have already mentioned in this thread into consideration.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

Salaam,

Some people here keep saying that they want an explanation of how the maraja' deduced their fatawa so that they can decide which fatwa is correct in their eyes. This has been answered (in a question form) by cc_30 in his last post in a simple way so that people realize what they are saying is illogical. You want the maraja' to explain to you how they came up with their fatawa? How many of you know Arabic for the very least? How many of you know all the concepts and terms that are needed in order to understand the basics of how they came up with their fatawa? How many of you have atleast read the Qur'an once from cover to cover? How many of you know what to look for in the Qur'an and the ahadith in order to understand what the marja' is referring to? I can go on and on, this is still the basic stuff.

Don't you think it would be alot more logical for scholars to provide an explanation, regardless of the few people that don't understand the intracacies as to how the specific ruling was established? "How many of you know Arabic for the very least?" Well, some of us do know arabic very well and some of us have retrieved the other criteria matches that have to be met. Furthermore, don't you think it would be more beneficial for the evidence and deductive analysis to be provided for a specific ruling rather than not be given? Because there is more chance one would reject a ruling if the explanation is not provided, whether knowledgable or not.

There is a reason when you read the resalah's of the maraja', they tell you to refer to the ahlul khibra to determine who is most knowledgeable amongst the scholars. If you look at some of the resalahs they define ahlul khibra as the scholars who have studied bahith kharij, because those scholars are acquainted with the research of the scholars and have studied their books for years, and are able to determine based on their research which scholar is most learned to them. In the bahith kharij classes, after the intro-mid level courses where you learn the concepts, terms, and the science of qur'an, hadith, usul, etc., you are able to comprehend "how they determine their fatawa." When referring to ahlul khibra, the people you refer to should have knowledge in this field so that they may guide you to who is most knowledgeable.

Is the 'most knowledgable' scholar, in their subjective view, absolutely consistently correct and knowledgable on all the facets of the various fields? If so, then there shouldn't be more than one ayatullah because then double standards comes into play as a muqallid would be following a certain ruling from a different ayatullah which is antithetical to the ruling of the 'most knowledgable' ayatullah, yet it would be 'ok' for that muqallid. In this case, there is no need to spend time ascertaining which scholar has the upper hand over the other in regards to knowledge, because all their fatwas and rulings are aligned in exactly the same position as each other in terms of being 'right'.

If the 'most knowledgable' scholar is susceptible to erring and issuing incorrect rulings, just like every ayatullah, then it is absurd to focus on which 'one scholar' is the 'most knowledgable' when you know that each scholar has a varying degree of opinionated truths and falsities.

Ironically, this makes the basis of the argument that scholars should proved explanations for their rulings even more strong because there is an inevitable degree of incosistency amongst scholars and they have the duty to present how they decreed their ruling, regardless of the level of understanding of the public. As I mentioned earlier, at least there is a higher chance that the correct ruling will be adopted.

So I suggest you think a little before you make statements like "we're just using the various scholars as a reference to decide whatever ruling we find logical and rational in our own perspective", and insist that the maraja' explain their rulings so that we can decide which one is correct, and that taqleed is blind following (that's because you are blind (since you insist on using that term), blind (ignorant) from all the requirments needed to come up with a fatwa yourself, and the requirements/prerequisites needed to be able to distinguish which fatwa is correct, and which scholar is most knowledgeable)). Take the above and what some members have already mentioned in this thread into consideration.

Let me clarify something because it seems you are missing a fundamental point I'm trying to make. Choosing a fatwa means it's already been approved by a 'qualified' Marja. The research for these fatwas have already been done and they present their judgement. I'm not implying one should research every aspect of how this conclusion was made before deciding which to choose (even though I have an issue with no transparency but that's off topic). One can decide on the provided 'approved fatwas' based on his intellect/reasoning/logic/etc.

Whether a person chooses based on intellect or convenience is a matter between him and God.

Taqleed, by definition, is synonymous to 'blind following'.

I'm putting special emphasis on this semantic due to the sheer antithesis of the name to the system.

[MAFHJ 185]

@ Ahlul-Bayt,

I won't pay much attention to your reply, because you keep repeating the same thing over and over, and your post clearly shows that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. The first and main point which establishes this is that you replied to my post and didn't reply to cc_30's post. My post was to elaborate a little more on what was already mentioned. Whereas you have proven to us and yourself that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. This is clear based on your request that maraja' provide explanations for their fatawa so that you may apply your "intellect/reason/logic/etc." to establish which one you accept. If by any chance you do reply to brother cc_30's post, I will be happy to write some terms and concepts for you in Arabic dealing with usul so that you can explain to us their definitions and show us how they are applied (you claim that you have the requirements needed to understand which fatawa are correct/logical and which are not).

The problem with you and others is that you like to delve into matters from a broader sense and dont concentrate on these specifics. These terms and concepts which you don't even know are taught in intro hawza courses. So you, someone who has no knowledge in these matters, are trying to put yourself in a position where you understand how the maraja' have issued their fatawa? Go learn these terms, concepts and all the other material required (which takes years to understand) so that when given the research of how the marja' established his rulings, you are able to comprehend them. BTW, on a side not, there are classes called bahith classes, which discuss the matters, but as I stated, you (as well as I) won't know what the scholars are referring to in most of the cases.

Take care

Edited January 2, 2012 by MAFHJ

[Abu Hadi 9,692]

Salam Alekum br,

He also didn't respond to my post asking for a realtistic alternative to the current system of taqleed.

I'm still waiting.....

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

So Most muslims here, including myself, want to follow Islam as taught by us Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt(a.s) in the correct way. In the world of no taqleed, what alternative to you propose to reach this goal.... ? A realistic one ...

No, on the contrary, it is not my purpose to abolish taqleed. My main issue is the cucooned perception so many Shia have towards taqleed and the way they impose their absurd dynamics as to "how" taqleed should be approached and implemented, which is nonsensical. The whole conception of the system has to change. The very name "taqleed" has to be changed, it's a misnomer.

The word "marj3ya" means "referential" and that's exactly what it should be ... referential! Scholars have a variable of opinions based on the science they used to extrapolate such rulings to form conclusions from narrations and both sides apparently have their own evidence to back-up the rulings they issue.

WE should be able to scrutinize all of the variables on one issue and take the one that is logically sound to us or extrapolate our own ideas from such rulings. In fact, we don't even need a qualification as we're judging between already established rulings and we're not incapacitated from using our intellect. Also, considering that one scholar can be more knowledgable in one field than another scholar, this approach makes the most sense.

I refer you to the very last post of this thread: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234994955-absurdity-with-taqleed/page__st__100

@ Ahlul-Bayt,

I won't pay much attention to your reply, because you keep repeating the same thing over and over, and your post clearly shows that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. The first and main point which establishes this is that you replied to my post and didn't reply to cc_30's post. My post was to elaborate a little more on what was already mentioned. Whereas you have proven to us and yourself that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. This is clear based on your request that maraja' provide explanations for their fatawa so that you may apply your "intellect/reason/logic/etc." to establish which one you accept. If by any chance you do reply to brother cc_30's post, I will be happy to write some terms and concepts for you in Arabic dealing with usul so that you can explain to us their definitions and show us how they are applied (you claim that you have the requirements needed to understand which fatawa are correct/logical and which are not).

The problem with you and others is that you like to delve into matters from a broader sense and dont concentrate on these specifics. These terms and concepts which you don't even know are taught in intro hawza courses. So you, someone who has no knowledge in these matters, are trying to put yourself in a position where you understand how the maraja' have issued their fatawa? Go learn these terms, concepts and all the other material required (which takes years to understand) so that when given the research of how the marja' established his rulings, you are able to comprehend them. BTW, on a side not, there are classes called bahith classes, which discuss the matters, but as I stated, you (as well as I) won't know what the scholars are referring to in most of the cases.

Take care

You have no clue what you're talking about. If you actually read my reply, you'd see that i was also responding to cc_30. If i'm arguing for the sake of arguing, why can't you answer my post? You haven't even touched on any of my points, or you're just deliberately avoiding them for some reason.

This is cc_30's post:

I have a question for brother Ahlul-Bayt, if he and brother InshaAllah do not mind the intrusion:

Surely you offered your fajr salat this morning. Since you are against blind following and believe that fatawa should be accepted based on evidence, can you show us the evidence you have accepted for the following, which is just the beginning of fajr salat:

1) How did you decide whether to recite your surahs audibly or silently?

2) How did you decide to recite part of a surah or the whole surah after you recite fatiha?

3) How did you decide whether you can recite one surah/part of a surah or more than one after fatiha?

As you can see, cc_30 is asking me a set of questions of which the scholars already have a unified consensus on. I'm not referring to this. Let me post my answer again:

Choosing a fatwa means it's already been approved by a 'qualified' Marja. The research for these fatwas have already been done and they present their judgement. I'm not implying one should research every aspect of how this conclusion was made before deciding which to choose (even though I have an issue with no transparency but that's off topic). One can decide on the provided 'approved fatwas' based on his intellect/reasoning/logic/etc.

-------

MAFHJ:

To be blunt, why does it matter what process a person uses to choose a fatwa which has already been approved by a marja? Why is a human's mental freedom being suppressed when his options (fatwas) are already been approved.

This 'learnedness' argument is flawed:

• A marja is either qualified or not, he isn't restricted to any areas.
  
• If a marja is more learned in one area compared to another marja then why are the less learned marjas allowed to make fatwas in an area they are not experts at?
  
• A less learned Marjas' fatwa, in an area he doesn't specialize in, is still valid.
  
• There is no transparency whatsoever to even know what marjas specializes in what areas and to what degree. This actually is a moot point because of the 3 above but wanted to mention it.
  

[cc_30 223]

As you can see, cc_30 is asking me a set of questions of which the scholars already have a unified consensus on. I'm not referring to this. Let me post my answer again:

Choosing a fatwa means it's already been approved by a 'qualified' Marja. The research for these fatwas have already been done and they present their judgement. I'm not implying one should research every aspect of how this conclusion was made before deciding which to choose (even though I have an issue with no transparency but that's off topic). One can decide on the provided 'approved fatwas' based on his intellect/reasoning/logic/etc.

Two points:

1) Unified consensus doesn't really mean anything. There used to be ijma or near-ijma that Ahlul-Kitab are najis, now there is virtual ijma that they are tahir. The ijtihad on some issues has completely changed with time.

2) With that in mind, let me remind you that you have consistently talked about being against "blind following." You said:

It is against logic and against this faith to just blindly follow something without thinking or checking it's veracity in truth, right? Hopefully, you would agree with this fact.

So, tell me, have you done this in regards to the questions I asked? What about the thousands of other jurisprudential issues which affect our lives on a daily basis? If you have not investigated the proofs behind these fatawa, you are by definition "blindly following" them.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

Two points:

1) Unified consensus doesn't really mean anything. There used to be ijma or near-ijma that Ahlul-Kitab are najis, now there is virtual ijma that they are tahir. The ijtihad on some issues has completely changed with time.

2) With that in mind, let me remind you that you have consistently talked about being against "blind following." You said:

1) First off, there is a consensus regarding the questions you posed and that's not going to change. Secondly, the fact that ijtihad is always progressing and changing with time proves that there is no way you can just follow one scholar on all fields of knowledge and in regards to matters where there exists no consensus.

So, tell me, have you done this in regards to the questions I asked? What about the thousands of other jurisprudential issues which affect our lives on a daily basis? If you have not investigated the proofs behind these fatawa, you are by definition "blindly following" them.

Why is the burden on my shoulders? The maraja are more than welcome to provide explanations for their rules and they actually should do. If they don't, i can just pick from amongst the already approved fatawa on a specific issue and decide which one I want and which one makes the most sense to me.

Why would I be 'blind following'? If I don't examine the proof for each ruling on the same issue, I am susceptible to blind following? Doesn't even make sense.

[cc_30 223]

1) First off, there is a consensus regarding the questions you posed and that's not going to change. Secondly, the fact that ijtihad is always progressing and changing with time proves that there is no way you can just follow one scholar on all fields of knowledge and in regards to matters where there exists no consensus.

Where is the proof it's not going to change? Before Shaheed as-Sadr (ra) and Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakim (ra), there were those who would say that Ahlul-Kitab are and always will be najis. What makes your claim different than theirs?

Also, please give us a breakdown of how changes in ijtihad through time prove that we cannot only follow one marja in all fields and in areas where ijma is absent. It is not clear how you arrived at that conclusion.

Why is the burden on my shoulders? The maraja are more than welcome to provide explanations for their rules and they actually should do. If they don't, i can just pick from amongst the already approved fatawa on a specific issue and decide which one I want and which one makes the most sense to me.

They have, as I posted in post #42. Also, many of them, like Sayyid Sistani, have Minhaj as-Saliheen in which they provide the proofs for their fatawa (I have seen Macisaac post explanations from these books in other threads). All of these resources are available for you and other mu'mineen to use. So you all really cannot use this excuse of non-availability of explanations anymore.

Why would I be 'blind following'? If I don't examine the proof for each ruling on the same issue, I am susceptible to blind following? Doesn't even make sense.

First of all, do you even know what the proof is?

Again, you said:

It is against logic and against this faith to just blindly follow something without thinking or checking it's veracity in truth, right?

So tell me, have you checked the "veracity in truth" of those fatawa? If you have not, you are, by your own definition, blind following. Blind following in thousands of ahkam of our maraja.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

Where is the proof it's not going to change? Before Shaheed as-Sadr (ra) and Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakim (ra), there were those who would say that Ahlul-Kitab are and always will be najis. What makes your claim different than theirs?

Also, please give us a breakdown of how changes in ijtihad through time prove that we cannot only follow one marja in all fields and in areas where ijma is absent. It is not clear how you arrived at that conclusion.

What, are we going to start reciting half a chapter or part of it in prayer when narrations of AhlulBayt say that this is incorrect? This ruling is not going to change as there is a consensus on it.

Regarding the bold part, you just told me that there exists an 'ijma' on this issue. Clearly it isn't the case, which further proves my point that we cannot follow one scholar on every aspect of jurisprudence because they all differ in their expertise and perception.

This 'learnedness' argument is flawed:

• A marja is either qualified or not, he isn't restricted to any areas.
  
• If a marja is more learned in one area compared to another marja then why are the less learned marjas allowed to make fatwas in an area they are not experts at?
  
• A less learned Marjas' fatwa, in an area he doesn't specialize in, is still valid.
  
• There is no transparency whatsoever to even know what marjas specializes in what areas and to what degree. This actually is a moot point because of the 3 above but wanted to mention it.
  

They have, as I posted in post #42. Also, many of them, like Sayyid Sistani, have Minhaj as-Saliheen in which they provide the proofs for their fatawa (I have seen Macisaac post explanations from these books in other threads). All of these resources are available for you and other mu'mineen to use. So you all really cannot use this excuse of non-availability of explanations anymore.

Well, that's great. At least i can now choose which ruling makes more sense to me in a more coherent manner. I don't really see what your point is.

First of all, do you even know what the proof is?

Again, you said:

So tell me, have you checked the "veracity in truth" of those fatawa? If you have not, you are, by your own definition, blind following. Blind following in thousands of ahkam of our maraja.

You lost me here. I have no idea how you derived blind following from this.

Scholars can have a confliction of rulings on one issue, so i am saying that you resort to determining for yourself which ruling is closer to the truth based upon your perspective.

[cc_30 223]

What, are we going to start reciting half a chapter or part of it in prayer when narrations of AhlulBayt say that this is incorrect? This ruling is not going to change as there is a consensus on it.

I am asking you for proof. You saying “it’s not going to change” is not proof. It is up to ijtihad to say whether those narrations are correct or not, and it is possible that a marja comes along and has a different view. I have shown you, and will do so further below, that ijma has and most likely will continue to change in the future.

Regarding the bold part, you just told me that there exists an 'ijma' on this issue. Clearly it isn't the case, which further proves my point that we cannot follow one scholar on every aspect of jurisprudence because they all differ in their expertise and perception.

Regarding the bold part, I thought I made my point clear but let me break it down so it is 100% so:

-early days of ghayba until this past century: ijma that Ahlul-Kitab are najis

-this past century until now: nearly ijma that Ahlul-Kitab are tahir

Hence, there is no longer ijma on the issue. How do you know the ijma will not change on other issues as well? There are other examples I can mention if you’d like. Anyways, my point was not that ijma can change, but rather that you are blindly following those ahkam of prayer I mentioned. I will return to that in a moment.

This 'learnedness' argument is flawed:

• A marja is either qualified or not, he isn't restricted to any areas.
  
• If a marja is more learned in one area compared to another marja then why are the less learned marjas allowed to make fatwas in an area they are not experts at?
  
• A less learned Marjas' fatwa, in an area he doesn't specialize in, is still valid.
  
• There is no transparency whatsoever to even know what marjas specializes in what areas and to what degree. This actually is a moot point because of the 3 above but wanted to mention it.
  

Who said anything about most learnedness? Again, my request was: Also, please give us a breakdown of how changes in ijtihad through time prove that we cannot only follow one marja in all fields and in areas where ijma is absent.

Well, that's great. At least i can now choose which ruling makes more sense to me in a more coherent manner. I don't really see what your point is.

How can you not see what my point is? You said:

The maraja are more than welcome to provide explanations for their rules and they actually should do. If they don't, i can just pick from amongst the already approved fatawa on a specific issue and decide which one I want and which one makes the most sense to me.

You said the maraja should do something, and I showed you that they do actually do it, and you say you don’t see the point?

You lost me here. I have no idea how you derived blind following from this.

I derived ‘blind following’ from your own words, which I quoted. You are following fatawa and you have no clue what the evidence for those fatawa is. If that is not blind following, what is it? You yourself called it blind following in your words I quoted, but now you say you don’t know how I derived it. So you tell me, please, what it is when you follow fatawa and don’t know the evidences given for those fatawa?

You seem to have this magical rule that following a fatwa which does not have ijma without reflecting upon it is blind following, but following fatawa upon which there is ijma is not blind following. This simply does not add up.

Scholars can have a confliction of rulings on one issue, so i am saying that you resort to determining for yourself which ruling is closer to the truth based upon your perspective.

I will discuss this with you after we clear up the aforementioned issues.

Edited January 2, 2012 by cc_30

[Muslimkid 6]

Salam

Taqleed is a way of life; just don't let certain scholars sucker you into their OWN personal conditions that they put on their taqleed. Many will vie for power and leadership.

Hey gogiison2, are you saying this in support of taqleed or against it? Our Maraaja' are there for Taqleed to just clarify any misconceptions.

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

I am asking you for proof. You saying “it’s not going to change” is not proof. It is up to ijtihad to say whether those narrations are correct or not, and it is possible that a marja comes along and has a different view. I have shown you, and will do so further below, that ijma has and most likely will continue to change in the future.

If there is a consensus on a particular issue 'at this very moment in time' by 'all scholars', then logic dictates that there is no ruling other than that which is agreed upon, is there? Whether it changes or not in the future is not applicable to this discussion.

There can be a case where scholars have an holisitic agreement of an issue but one Shia is in disagreement with it. Taqleed doesn't allow this objection and disregards it. So what to do?

Regarding the bold part, I thought I made my point clear but let me break it down so it is 100% so:

-early days of ghayba until this past century: ijma that Ahlul-Kitab are najis

-this past century until now: nearly ijma that Ahlul-Kitab are tahir

Hence, there is no longer ijma on the issue. How do you know the ijma will not change on other issues as well? There are other examples I can mention if you’d like. Anyways, my point was not that ijma can change, but rather that you are blindly following those ahkam of prayer I mentioned. I will return to that in a moment.

you did previously state that there now exists 'virtual ijma' that ahlul-kitab are tahir. Anyway..

You're just playing games or not understanding my point of view.

1. Whether ijma can change later or not is irrelevant. The set of rules where ijma exists 'now' we follow, because all scholars agree upon it. Are you saying they're all wrong? If so, then your idea of taqleed gets thrown out of the window and in the trashpit.

2. If there exists no other opinion or rules on Ahkaam of prayer, how would I be blind following? Once again, I ask, are they all wrong? Am I even allowed to object to the rules if I have 'no qualifications', according to most sheep? No.

Who said anything about most learnedness? Again, my request was: Also, please give us a breakdown of how changes in ijtihad through time prove that we cannot only follow one marja in all fields and in areas where ijma is absent.

Because if you follow one scholar in all fields for the rest of your life, you're limiting yourself, putting yourself in a box, not realizing that rulings can change based on personal methods of interpretation and that rulings can be abrogated or no longer be relevant now.

How can you not see what my point is? You said:

You said the maraja should do something, and I showed you that they do actually do it, and you say you don’t see the point?

I meant, i don't see where you're going with this to somehow 'disprove' my arguments. If you read my previous post, I clearly stated "Well, that's great. At least i can now choose which ruling makes more sense to me in a more coherent manner." I don't know how I could possibly simplify this.

I derived ‘blind following’ from your own words, which I quoted. You are following fatawa and you have no clue what the evidence for those fatawa is. If that is not blind following, what is it? You yourself called it blind following in your words I quoted, but now you say you don’t know how I derived it. So you tell me, please, what it is when you follow fatawa and don’t know the evidences given for those fatawa?

If there is an agreement by all scholars, then the ruling is accepted for obvious reasons. If someone personally doesn't agree with it, they can check how they maraja came to this conclusion, and decide whether to agree with it or not. Unfortunately, taqleed is so totalitarian that it will deny you this liberty, anyway.

You seem to have this magical rule that following a fatwa which does not have ijma without reflecting upon it is blind following, but following fatawa upon which there is ijma is not blind following. This simply does not add up.

Read previous responses and it will add up. If you still don't understand, lets move on or we'll just remain static.

I will discuss this with you after we clear up the aforementioned issues.

Yes, let's discuss this. At least we'll get somewhere.

[Guest]

The people who argue against taqleed in the practical sense for Islamic fiqh do so because it's what they WANT. Truth doesn't matter as much as their desires.

-They like the self-empowerment of interpreting their own rules.

-Religion is a free-for-all for devoted vigilantes.

-They have an inherent skepticism and resentment towards any forms of authority or hierarchal structure, legitimate or otherwise.

-Can claim loyalty "after the fact" to historical figures by saying "They're infallible, of course I would have supported their every statement", and then avoiding accountability by claiming that such loyalty cannot be tested on contemporaries.

-They trivialize and pervert the production and consumption of scholarship to the lowest common denominator.

-Not coincidentally apolitical

-Tend to have more literal interpretations of laws and ethics

-Divisive yet largely irrelevant except on the internet

The people who argue against taqleed on a theoretical or logical level just fall flat on their face. That's why it's easier for them to divert the discussion to the practical world. It's easier to seed doubts that way by playing as the Alex Jones of Islam.

[gogiison2 198]

Salam

Hey gogiison2, are you saying this in support of taqleed or against it? Our Maraaja' are there for Taqleed to just clarify any misconceptions.

WA wr wb,

I am all for the betterment of mankind. Saying that taqleed is wajib is sort of like saying breathing to avoid death is wajib. When scholars put in their OWN version of knowledge, this is where I think people have problems following them.

[cc_30 223]

If there is a consensus on a particular issue 'at this very moment in time' by 'all scholars', then logic dictates that there is no ruling other than that which is agreed upon, is there? Whether it changes or not in the future is not applicable to this discussion.

There can be a case where scholars have an holisitic agreement of an issue but one Shia is in disagreement with it. Taqleed doesn't allow this objection and disregards it. So what to do?

Why do you necessarily derive that conclusion? If your own logic and reason can decide which fatwa of two (or more) is closer to the truth, why can your reason not discover that even ijma is wrong? If reason can decipher which fatwa is closer to the truth, why can’t it discover that the fatwa is wrong in the first place?

Just the other night, I was speaking with a well-known public speaker who many treat as if he is an alim and he was openly saying he rejects the notion of stoning adulterers to death even though all maraja’ agree that it is the primary punishment for adultery. Why? His “reason” tells him the Prophet (s) could never do such a thing. In your understanding of taqleed, is he wrong?

you did previously state that there now exists 'virtual ijma' that ahlul-kitab are tahir. Anyway..

‘Virtual ijma’ and ‘near ijma’ mean almost the exact same thing (you can look up the meanings). But my point is clear: the ijma has changed. Whether it has virtually or nearly changed to a new ijma is besides the point, which is that it has changed. And because it has changed, it is not as rock solid as you are making it out to be.

You're just playing games or not understanding my point of view.

1. Whether ijma can change later or not is irrelevant. The set of rules where ijma exists 'now' we follow, because all scholars agree upon it. Are you saying they're all wrong? If so, then your idea of taqleed gets thrown out of the window and in the trashpit.

2. If there exists no other opinion or rules on Ahkaam of prayer, how would I be blind following? Once again, I ask, are they all wrong? Am I even allowed to object to the rules if I have 'no qualifications', according to most sheep? No.

I think, according to the position you have been advocating, you do have another option. As I said, if your reason is strong enough to decide between two fatawa, why isn’t it strong enough to reject ijma in favor of what your reason tells you is closer to truth? It seems as if you are restricting the power of reason to only decide between two fatawa? If reason can decipher which fatwa is closer to the truth, why can’t it discover that the fatwa is wrong in the first place?

I meant, i don't see where you're going with this to somehow 'disprove' my arguments. If you read my previous post, I clearly stated "Well, that's great. At least i can now choose which ruling makes more sense to me in a more coherent manner." I don't know how I could possibly simplify this.

I wasn’t, and never claimed I was, saying those things to “disprove your arguments.” You said that maraja should provide details behind their rulings. I did not say this nor open the topic. What I did do is show you that they do in fact provide those details. That is all. It was a side comment made by you and I made a side comment in response. It is very difficult to discuss with you when you can't even claim responsibility for your role in part of the discussion.

If there is an agreement by all scholars, then the ruling is accepted for obvious reasons. If someone personally doesn't agree with it, they can check how they maraja came to this conclusion, and decide whether to agree with it or not. Unfortunately, taqleed is so totalitarian that it will deny you this liberty, anyway.

OK so now you are opening up to this idea? You appeared opposed to it at the beginning of this post, by saying that logic dictates we can only follow the ijma view, but this statement seems more in favor of opposing it if reason sees otherwise. This is especially true because of your use of the word "unfortunately."

Anyways, my main point in responding to you was to show that you perform blind following, according to your own definition of it, every day when you follow thousands of fatawa without knowing even the smallest thing about how the maraja derived those fatawa. You either need to change your definition of blind following or show how you yourself do research how they came to their conclusions.

Edited January 3, 2012 by cc_30

[MAK 9]

(salam)

You know, I bet 90% of the people in this discussion dont even realize what brother اهل البيت is saying.. If people are too blind to realize that there is something seriously wrong with how people do taqleed nowadays then I can only pray for God to enrich your intellect so that you can acknowledge this problem.

1- Irrational arguments like "they are RIGHT in NOT explaining due to people's limited knowledge" equates to saying that teachers should not exist because people need to learn. Please restrain your elitism people. Saying stuff like "You dont know so you should shut up" makes me sick to my stomach. This is certainly not the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and his Progeny (as). It is the sunnah of ignorant and arrogant nations. Need I remind you of Imam Ali's (as) plead: "Ask me before you lose/miss me" ?

2- I swear, I mean no offense to anyone, but SERIOUSLY, why should any sane person give a flying turd about silly cases like whether Ahlul kitab are najis or not? I swear, there are nations who have reached the moon and beyond, and we're still quarreling over small pathetic issues. Is it any wonder that the west is feeding most islamic nations manuer through dixie cups? I mean, do people ACTUALLY believe that God will not accept your prayers because you shook the hands of an atheist without washing them before your prayers?!?.. I understand that this was only brought up as an example to demonstrate how Ijma3 changes, but it is a fine example of the pathetic issues people in our islamic nations dwell upon instead of actually trying to contribute something that is meaningful to the progress of our Islamic nations. Oh and Ijma' on essential cases like how many rak'ats maghrib consist of will NEVER change. Yes, I know that because I am psychic, as there is obviously no other way I could reach that prediction.. Excuse the sarcasm but people need to stop dodging brother اهل البيت 's points. As for the cases where there won't be ijma', well then we use something called our brain to evaluate all the approved fatwas from the different maraji' to reach a conclusion (That is brother اهل البيت 's point). The opponents of this notion need to convince us why disregarding ALL fatwas except the one made from one's chosen marja' is BETTER than taking ALL approved fatwas (and their reasoning, if desired) into consideration, in the case where no objective evidence can be produced to define one single marja' as "Most knowledgeable" within the relevant field. THIS is the core of the discussion.

"Taqleed" has surely reached a sad state in this day and age, where certain families are even split when it comes to performing what is supposed to be cheerful obligations such as Eid. I know of cases where the mother fasts while the children celebrate Eid and vice versa.. All because of this retarded and primitive notion of how taqleed is supposed to be performed. When something such as Eid, which is supposed to UNITE and strengthen the bonds between muslims turn into a war of jurisprudence and a reason for SPLITS in our nation, then you know it's time to take a thorough look at ourselves and revise our positions. It doen't take a rocket scientist to realize that something is wrong here. Wassalamu 'ala Mani'ttab'al Huda!

Edited January 4, 2012 by MAK

[cc_30 223]

(salam)

You know, I bet 90% of the people in this discussion dont even realize what brother اهل البيت is saying.. If people are too blind to realize that there is something seriously wrong with how people do taqleed nowadays then I can only pray for God to enrich your intellect so that you can acknowledge this problem.

1- Irrational arguments like "they are RIGHT in NOT explaining due to people's limited knowledge" equates to saying that teachers should not exist because people need to learn. Please restrain your elitism people. Saying stuff like "You dont know so you should shut up" makes me sick to my stomach. This is certainly not the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and his Progeny (as). It is the sunnah of ignorant and arrogant nations. Need I remind you of Imam Ali's (as) plead: "Ask me before you lose/miss me" ?

2- I swear, I mean no offense to anyone, but SERIOUSLY, why should any sane person give a flying turd about silly cases like whether Ahlul kitab are najis or not? I swear, there are nations who have reached the moon and beyond, and we're still quarreling over small pathetic issues. Is it any wonder that the west is feeding most islamic nations manuer through dixie cups? I mean, do people ACTUALLY believe that God will not accept your prayers because you shook the hands of an atheist without washing them before your prayers?!?.. I understand that this was only brought up as an example to demonstrate how Ijma3 changes, but it is a fine example of the pathetic issues people in our islamic nations dwell upon instead of actually trying to contribute something that is meaningful to the progress of our Islamic nations. Oh and Ijma' on essential cases like how many rak'ats maghrib consist of will NEVER change. Yes, I know that because I am psychic, as there is obviously no other way I could reach that prediction.. Excuse the sarcasm but people need to stop dodging brother اهل البيت 's points. As for the cases where there won't be ijma', well then we use something called our brain to evaluate all the approved fatwas from the different maraji' to reach a conclusion (That is brother اهل البيت 's point). The opponents of this notion need to convince us why disregarding ALL fatwas except the one made from one's chosen marja' is BETTER than taking ALL approved fatwas (and their reasoning, if desired) into consideration, in the case where no objective evidence can be produced to define one single marja' as "Most knowledgeable" within the relevant field. THIS is the core of the discussion.

"Taqleed" has surely reached a sad state in this day and age, where certain families are even split when it comes to performing what is supposed to be cheerful obligations such as Eid. I know of cases where the mother fasts while the children celebrate Eid and vice versa.. All because of this retarded and primitive notion of how taqleed is supposed to be performed. When something such as Eid, which is supposed to UNITE and strengthen the bonds between muslims turn into a war of jurisprudence and a reason for SPLITS in our nation, then you know it's time to take a thorough look at ourselves and revise our positions. It doen't take a rocket scientist to realize that something is wrong here. Wassalamu 'ala Mani'ttab'al Huda!

1) The man in your avatar would disagree heavily with you. Ask him if he thinks Sayyid Khamenei has wasted countless hours researching and issuing fatawa on these silly, small issues.

2) We have many riwayat which discuss these "insignificant" issues. So you must either claim that they are fabricated or that Ahlul-Bayt (as) spent a large amount of time discussing small issues which have no significance. Or you can reflect on a third option, which is that your understanding of what is important is extremely limited compared to that of Allah and his awliya. So which is it?

[MAK 9]

1) The man in your avatar would disagree heavily with you. Ask him if he thinks Sayyid Khamenei has wasted countless hours researching and issuing fatawa on these silly, small issues.

2) We have many riwayat which discuss these "insignificant" issues. So you must either claim that they are fabricated or that Ahlul-Bayt (as) spent a large amount of time discussing small issues which have no significance. Or you can reflect on a third option, which is that your understanding of what is important is extremely limited compared to that of Allah and his awliya. So which is it?

1- The man in my avatar and Sayid Ali Khamenei are both men who have done tremendous amounts of positive work for our progress as Muslims. Either you don't understand what I'm saying, or you're just compelled to "defend" out of instinct, with complete disregard to the context I presented. Had Ayatollah Khamenei spent countless hours on petty issues while disregarding the big issues, then yes, the man in my avatar would classify that as a waste of time. I mean, you would've had a valid point if my statements were made in a world full of Hassan Nasrallahs and Ali Khameneis. As this is not the case, I'd say you wasted your time typing your point 1.

2- I believe that my understanding of what is important is closely in line with the teachings of the Quran, The Prophet(pbuh), the Ahlulbayt (as) and the Awliya (ra). I base my position on the concept presented by Imam Ali (as), when he said: "La naf'a bil nawafil itha dharrat bil fara'ed" (There is no point in performing the recommended/supplementary if it causes the obligatory to get negatively affected). Based on my sense of logic, I am perfectly fine with applying that concept to two obligatory acts, where one is of higher importance than the other. Because, at the end of the day, I want to reach the moon, as opposed to discussing what kind of devils live under my fingernails. Certain parts of our religion require good understanding of concepts such as relativity, context, and priority. In a sense, that is why we need Marajis out there to direct us towards the correct path, but our Maraji's are only tools for us to use in order to reach salvation. And like all other tools, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to utilize them. A nation with people who OBSESS with Taharat/Najasa while having no problem with throwing trash out of the window and on to the street, is certainly a nation with serious issues. Such a nation suffers from the effects of ignorance and lack of thought. This phenomenon only grows when we start advocating methodologies that are based upon depriving people from the freedom of thought. So, you're either with me on my voyage to the moon, or you're staying behind to argue about exactly how far up on the foot you can go with your hand while doing wudu. Which is it?

3- I would appreciate it if you could make an attempt at addressing the other points in my post.

Edited January 4, 2012 by MAK

[cc_30 223]

First of all, I do agree with you that we need to concerned with issues affecting Muslims and Islam in the modern world. But I believe you are dead-wrong in calling issues of fiqh "small," "pathetic" and saying we shouldn't give a "flying turd." In regards to the last statement, with all due respect you want to fly to the moon when you have not even succeeded in the akhlaq of protecting your tongue?

The bottom line is that the a'immah (as) have discussed these "small, pathetic" issues in detail and devoted time to them. My question to you is: why can't there be balance? Why do we not care about them at all and just go to the moon, as you say? Can't we go to the moon, while also devoting a befitting amount of time to them? That is exactly what the man in your avatar and Sayyid Khamenei have done. You just want to throw them out altogether, while I would say that each field and activity deserves its own amount of time and energy.

[MAK 9]

Haha, it seems my frustration got the best of me, and I do apologize if my language offended anyone. I actually wanted to edit some of the language later but it wouldn't let me. At the time of writing, "Flying turd" seemed diplomatic and soft to me. As for "pathetic", it's probably not the wisest word to use in regards to the fiqh itself. I apologize. :)

EDIT: And I am all for balance! I did not mean to say that we should throw them out and disregard them. I meant we should get our priorities in order so that we do not neglect the big picture. I do agree that I expressed myself a bit too extremely.

Edited January 4, 2012 by MAK

[cc_30 223]

No apologies necessary, we all slip up at times :) I understand that you were speaking with passion, and I understood the general point you were getting at, which I agree with, but I was worried that it was going too extreme in one direction. Alhamdulillah we cleared it up, so no worries inshaAllah. Hopefully we can continue to have a productive discussion on the duties Allah has blessed us with.

Edited January 4, 2012 by cc_30

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

Thank you for trying to chrystalize my points for the opposition, MAK. Notice how he avoided responding to the the key point in your post, which is the issue i'm trying to address. Anyway, thanks for your support. Those who are ready to see, see. Those who wish to stay blind, will stay so.

Why do you necessarily derive that conclusion? If your own logic and reason can decide which fatwa of two (or more) is closer to the truth, why can your reason not discover that even ijma is wrong? If reason can decipher which fatwa is closer to the truth, why can’t it discover that the fatwa is wrong in the first place?

Just the other night, I was speaking with a well-known public speaker who many treat as if he is an alim and he was openly saying he rejects the notion of stoning adulterers to death even though all maraja’ agree that it is the primary punishment for adultery. Why? His “reason” tells him the Prophet (s) could never do such a thing. In your understanding of taqleed, is he wrong?

Is all Ijma' wrong? Yes and no.

If i'm using logic and reason to decipher which fatwa is closer to the truth, then doesn't logic state that, at the same time, I am also discovering and determining which fatwa is incorrect on the same issue?

The alim has his own reasonings as to why stoning adulterers to death is not legislated in Islam. Again, do all maraja have a consensus in this matter or do some differ? If they differ, then the alim has every right to share his individual verdict on the matter, as he is also knowledgable. As I said, ijma' can also be erroneous, but not on all matters.

I think, according to the position you have been advocating, you do have another option. As I said, if your reason is strong enough to decide between two fatawa, why isn’t it strong enough to reject ijma in favor of what your reason tells you is closer to truth? It seems as if you are restricting the power of reason to only decide between two fatawa? If reason can decipher which fatwa is closer to the truth, why can’t it discover that the fatwa is wrong in the first place?

I've pretty much explained this.

I wasn’t, and never claimed I was, saying those things to “disprove your arguments.” You said that maraja should provide details behind their rulings. I did not say this nor open the topic. What I did do is show you that they do in fact provide those details. That is all. It was a side comment made by you and I made a side comment in response. It is very difficult to discuss with you when you can't even claim responsibility for your role in part of the discussion.

Yes, I did say that. You showed me that they do provide details and I responded with "Well, that's great. At least i can now choose which ruling makes more sense to me in a more coherent manner."

OK so now you are opening up to this idea? You appeared opposed to it at the beginning of this post, by saying that logic dictates we can only follow the ijma view, but this statement seems more in favor of opposing it if reason sees otherwise. This is especially true because of your use of the word "unfortunately."

Anyways, my main point in responding to you was to show that you perform blind following, according to your own definition of it, every day when you follow thousands of fatawa without knowing even the smallest thing about how the maraja derived those fatawa. You either need to change your definition of blind following or show how you yourself do research how they came to their conclusions.

Well, I explain everything step by step to answer in order to your case specific questions. As the discussion goes on, the more you get a better grasp on my viewpoint, more ideas are revealed when tackling your new questions. It just happens.

I'll try to simplify this. Maraja vary in opinion and differ in their method of understanding issues. Using my intellect to discern which ruling is rational and strong on a specific issue, this is not called blind following but free thinking.

Taqleed has barred people from free thinking and they have invented nonsensical implementations on how taqleed should be approached.

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun 528]

Salamalaikum,

Sorry we don't have time to study books of ahadees, ilm ul kalam, falsafa, mantiq, usooli al fiqh and Quran to get guidance ourselves. The ulema do the hard bit for us and we eventually make sure we read their tawzeeh. They are like doctors and we don't ask them any sought of proof just because they have been certified by a board or association.

Wrong medication may lead to death but wrong fatwa doesn't kill u.

All these are good excuses for me but it is a matter of ishkaal in front of Allah azwj.

Religion is simple.

Allah azwj wants us to follow religion.

He azwj created guides and teachers asws and ordered us to take their knowledge; all of us.

We have an imam ajf in ghayba and he guides.

Scholars play vital role in disseminating their a.s knowledge to the people.

Call this taqleed or a student teacher relationship or treat him as a counsellor or a judge; his duty is to teach the right thing without mixing his opinions or falsehood.

But he can err.

Allah azwj does not misguided after having guided.

We seek from a person thinking him to be disseminating knowledge of the imams asws.

If he is not doing justice to his role then Allah azwj will make it known to the hearts of momineen.

If they still persist and accept his misjudgment and wrongs then Allah azwj will punish.

He azwj does not make obligatory following a person who can err because he can misguide and people will be obliged to bear with him.

Allah azwj is adil and the shepherd knows who his sheep are. He ajf will guide them to the truth if they seek truth Inshallah.

Ya Ali Madad