I began, as most human beings do, by following my parents. In my adolescence, as most human beings do, I questioned, and discovered what I believed for myself. I grew up Tablighi, so as a Traditionalist (or keeping in line with the dichotomy I typically used, “Sufi”) I followed the Hanafi madhab (I am from Bangladesh) and didn’t really hear about a school in ‘aqeedah, but do remember believing Allah was everywhere. My idea of knowledge then was that Islam is something passed down, without too much controversy or conflict, so it seemed safe to read any religious book and just try to be the best Muslim I could be. When I started college, I became exposed to the Salafi Da’wah. It sounded good, as it is quite intuitive - this is what the Quran says, this is what the Sunnah says. So I was Salafi for a while. I felt I had to be careful from where I took knowledge, and make sure it was “authentic” since it seemed most Muslims did not know from whence they got the details of their religion. Eventually I found out that although my parents had never taught me why I should be “Hanafi” or what the proofs were for everything we believed, there were in fact proofs and evidences behind it. When I would speak with my Sufi friends, I found they were not ignorant, they very much loved the Sunnah, and did feel the religion was something which should be properly transmitted and taught. So I guess you could say I have had a bit of a “rebirth” in terms of knowledge. I thought I knew what I was doing and, as most human beings do, I found out I didn’t know half the story.

So here I am, having informally learned a lot of the religion, but from different groups, with no methodology, etc. Thus the question of knowledge and scholarship has occured to me. I first of all do believe I can learn from both Salafis and Sufis. However, I was confused about how exactly I ought to approach learning from scratch from two groups who often seem diametrically opposed in terms of methodology. It is confusing being open to the Truth from anyone, and I felt my life was falling apart in incoherency, so I had to sit and decide upon many of the major issues which would shape my life.

So I thought about it a while and reflected on the standard 3 level tier of knowledge, which I knew about but felt more urgently interested in due to my situation.

There are 3 stations in regards to knowledge:

1. The Layman - this is most of the Ummah (this is where I am right now)
2. The Scholar - this is the rank of those who studied Islam formally and methodically (this is what I hope to be as I study)
3. The Independent - this is I do not know if I can attain this level, but I know it exists

With these 3 stations comes 3 approaches to gaining knowledge appropriate to the status:

1. Taqleed - (blind) following 
2. Ittiba’ah - following with discrimination
3. Ijtihaad - independent derivation

Now, the first is following and I know that there is some controversy in “blind” following. The reality is, even Salafis engage in blind following at times, despite their warnings against it. It is not only not practically possible to at all times know the exact proof (and furthermore to be convinced of it) for every minute issue, but it is academically not sound either. Therefore, I believe the distinction made between “following” and “blind following” is a moot one. If you are a follower, you are a follower. Yes, it is good to know the proofs and be informed, but it is not necessary. That is why we are laymen. We do not have the necessary knowledge or skills to even be convinced of an argument let alone to analyze one presented to us. So for now, shockingly enough, I have opted to “blind” follow scholarship. Following does not mean you give up your brain, just that you know your own limits. It is acceptable for me or any layperson, to follow scholarship without asking for details. This is a blessing upon us from our Lord, to trust our scholars and follow what the glean from the religion. As it says, “ask those who know”.

As for the scholar, then he or she is someone who does have the knowledge and ability to analyze religious issues and verdicts. He or she is not independent to the level that they research every issue or derive it themselves, but if they strongly believe the evidence for something is stronger such that it behooves them to follow it, they cannot in good conscience do otherwise. (By the way, some make only 2 distinctions and say that taqleed and ittibaa’ah are one and the same; you are either a muqallid or a mujtahid.)

As for the mujtahid, he is not allowed to follow because he has the ability and responsibility to derive in that issue directly from the sources of religion.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 21st, 2007 at 10:06 am and is filed under Unification Theory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.