Taqleed Among the Sahaaba

With doubts circulating among certain sectors nowadays as to the importance of Taqleed, we furnish a few examples of Taqleed among the Sahaaba.

Hazrat Umar and Taqleed
In his famous book, I’laamul-Muwaqqi’een Allama Ibnul Qayyim (RA), who is a student of Allama Ibni Taiymiyyah (RA) writes the following:
Daarimi reports that Hazrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had devised a rule in his time, that when no hadith is available on any new issue, then people will practice on the Fatwa of Hazrat Abubakr (radhiyallahu anhu). (This was after the demise of Hazrat Abubakr) When no fatwa of his was available then people must practice on whatever the Ulema rule after mutual consultation (mashura).

This incident proves that all people were bound to follow one particular Imam or one fatwa. Since Hazrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had the authority of Khilafat, he was able to enforce this ruling. Nowadays there is no such authority, hence every second person becomes his own mujtahid. This incident also points out that the Fatwa of Ulema is a valid basis upon which people can base their practice. Hazrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) did not impose the furnishing of any proof for such fatwa.

HAZRAT MUAATH:
Aswad bin Yazeed narrates: Muaath bin Jabal (radhiyallahu anhu) came to us in Yemen as a teacher and commander. We questioned him regarding a man who had died leaving behind a daughter and a sister. He decreed half the estate for the daughter and half for the sister. This was while Rasoolullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was still alive. (Kitabul-Faraaidh, Bukhari)

HAZRAT ZAID BIN THAABIT:
Imam Bukhari narrates that during one Hajj season the Ansaar of Madinah asked Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) a question pertaining to females who experience menses during their Hajj. Ibni Abbas answered their question. However, they refused to accept the answer because they had received a different answer from Zaid bin Thaabit, who was their Mufti and leader. They said: “O Ibni Abbas, we cannot follow your ruling because you differ with Zaid bin Thaabit. Instead, we will only accept the fatwa of Zaid (R.A.)”

HAZRAT ABDULLAH BIN MASUD (radhiyallahu anhu)
A man came to him with the following question: A woman got married but no mehr (dowry) had been stipulated for her. Before consummation of the nikah her husband died. How much dowry is she entitled to?
This issue is not specifically mentioned in Quran and Hadith. He, therefore, requested a month’s grace to research and ponder over the answer. After a month he said: She is entitled to the mehrul-mithl, not more, not less.

The above are a few of hundreds of incidents where Sahaaba issued rulings which were based on principles of Quran and Hadith, but did not mention the basis of their answers. This does not mean that their fatwas were not based on proof, for such an act is unthinkable. What is meant in the above episodes is that people who followed the Sahaaba did not demand proof, for in order to act on a ruling one does not need to know the basis of that ruling. This is the essence of Taqleed. Ulema have defined taqleed as accepting and following a ruling without seeking proof therefore. This type of taqleed was not condemned by any Sahaabi of that time, nor by any Aalim after them. The Muftis of today merely repeat the Fatwas of the Sahaabi. In fact, they base their fatwas and rulings on those issued by the Sahaaba.

THREE TYPES OF AAMEEN
During the time when the British ruled India a dispute arose in one Musjid between Hanafis and Ghair-Muqallids regarding the utterance of aameen aloud behind the Imam. The Hanafis would saying aameen softly, while the Ghair-Muqallids shouted aameen at the top of their voices. This behaviour annoyed some of the Hanafi musallees, resulting in a dispute. The dispute took a violent turn and led to blows inside the Musjid. Police were called in to restore order, and consequently, offenders from both parties were arrested. The matter went to court, where the presiding Judge happened to be British. Knowing nothing about the business of loud or soft aameen, but determined to get to the bottom of the conflict, he called in expert
witnesses. These were independent Ulema who had to explain the different types of aameen. They thus explained that in Islam there are two types of aameen. One is aameen bil jahr (loud aameen), the other is aameen bis-sirr (soft aameen). The first is practiced by Shaafi’ees and Hambalis, while the second is the practice of Hanafi and Maliki followers. The Ulema further explained that the different Schools of Fiqh practiced these two methods in harmony for centuries. The Judge was fascinated by this explanation of the Ulema. He asked them again: “Are you sure these are the only two types of aameen in your Shariah?” The expert witnesses confirmed that indeed there was no third type. At the time of passing judgment the Judge made the following comment: “Having heard the expert witnesses expound on the different types of aameen, I have come to the conclusion that there are actually three types of aameen among Muslims. One is aameen bil-Jahr, the other is aameen bis-sirr. These two types are prevalent and widely accepted among Muslims, and were authentically transmitted from the early days of Islam. As for the third type, this I call aameen bish-sharr (the aameen of evil!), and this has no place in Islam! This is the aameen over which people fight.”

How true is the observation of this non-Muslim judge. The different mathaa-hib co-existed in total harmony for centuries. In the olden days one never heard of animosity among the followers of the different math-habs. It appears that the discord arose when people discarded the math-habs and did not tolerate views that were based on valid Islamic proof.