This verse of the Holy Qur'an indicates in clear terms that a group of Muslims should devote themselves to acquiring the knowledge of Shari'a and all others should consult them for their rulings. Now, if a person asks a reliable scholar ('alim) about the juridical (shar'i) ruling in a specific matter and acts upon his advice, can any reasonable person accuse him of committing shirk on the ground that he has followed the advice of a human being instead of the Qur'an and Sunna? Certainly not.The reason is obvious, because he has not abandoned obedience to Allah Most High and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Rather, he is in search of a way to obey them. However, being unaware of the shar'i commands, he has consulted a scholar in order to know what he is required to do by Allah. He has not taken that scholar as the subject of his obedience, but rather as an interpreter of the divine commands. Nobody can accuse him of committing shirk.This is taqlid in essence: a person who is not able to understand The Holy Qur'an and Sunna, and so consults a Muslim jurist, often termed an Imam, and acts according to his interpretation of the Shari'a. The person never considers the Imam worthy of obedience, but seeks his guidance in order to know the requirements of Shari'a due to not having direct access to the Holy Qur'an and Sunna or not having adequate knowledge for deriving the rules of Shari'a from these sources. This behaviour is called taqlid of that jurist or Imam.

Thus, how can it be said that taqlid is equivalent to shirk?The qualified Muslim jurists or Imams, who have devoted their lives to ijtihad, have collected the rules of Shari'a according to their respective interpretations of its sources in an almost codified form. This collection of the rules of Shari'a according to the interpretation of a particular jurist is called the madhhab or "school" of that jurist. Thus, the school of an Imam is not something parallel to the Shari'a or something alien to it. In fact, it is a particular interpretation of the Shari'a and a collection of the major shar'i rules derived from the Holy Qur'an and Sunna by a reliable jurist, and arranged subject-wise for the convenience of the followers of the Shari'a.So, the one who follows a particular school actually follows the Holy Qur'an and Sunna according to the interpretation of a particular reliable jurist, whom he or she believes to be the most trustworthy and most well-versed in the matters of Shari'a.As for the differences in the schools, they have emerged through the different possible interpretations of the rules mentioned in or derived from the Holy Qur'an and Sunna. In order to understand this point properly, it will be relevant to know that the rules mentioned in the Holy Qur'an and Sunna are of two different types.The first type of rules are those which are stated in these sacred sources in such clear words that they allow only one interpretation.

No other interpretation is possible thereof, such as the obligation of prayer, zakat, fasting and pilgrimage; and the prohibition of pork and adultery. With regard to this set of rules, no difference of opinion has ever taken place. All the schools of jurists are unanimous in their interpretation; hence there is no room for ijtihad or taqlid in these matters. Also, since everyone can easily understand them from the Holy Qur'an and Sunna, there is no need for consulting an Imam or jurist.On the other hand, there are some rules of Shari'a derived from the Holy Qur'an and Sunna where any of the following situations may arise:

1) The wording used in the sacred sources may allow more than one interpretation. For example, while mentioning the duration of the waiting period [‘idda] for a divorced woman, the Holy Qur'an has used the following expression:"'And divorced women shall wait [as regards their marriage] for three periods of quru'" (2:228).The word quru' used in the above verse has two meanings. It stands both for the "period of menstruation" and the "period of cleanliness" [i.e. tuhr]. Both meanings are possible in the verse and each of them has different legal consequences. The question that requires jurisprudential efforts here is:

"Which of the two meanings is intended here?"

While answering the question, the juridical opinions may naturally differ, as is the case. Imam Shafi'i interprets the word quru' as the "period of cleanliness," while imam Abu Hanifa interprets it as the "period of menstruation." Both of them have a number of reasons in support of their respective views, and neither can be completely rejected. This example highlights one of the causes for differences of opinion among different schools.2) Sometimes disparity appears between two hadiths of Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and a jurist has to reconcile them or prefer one of them over the other. In this case also, the view points of the jurists may differ from one another. For example, there are two sets of traditions found in the books of hadiths narrating different behaviours of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) while bowing [ruku] in prayer. The first set of hadiths mentions that he used to raise his hands before bowing, while the other hadiths mention that he did not raise his hands except at the beginning of prayer. The jurists, while accepting that both ways are correct, have expressed different views regarding the question:

"Which of the two ways is more preferable?"

Thus, situations like these also cause differences of opinion between various schools.(3) There are many issues which are not specifically addressed in the Holy Qur'an and Sunna. The solution to these issues is sought either through analogy or through examples, found in the sacred sources, that have an indirect bearing on the subject. Here again, the jurists may have different approaches to extracting the required solution from the Holy Qur'an and Sunna.Such are the basic causes of differences of opinion between the schools. These differences are in no way a defect in Shari'a, rather they are a source of flexibility composing a vast field of academic research governed by the principles of Shari'a and settled by means of the Holy Qur'an and Sunna for all time to come.A Muslim jurist who has all the necessary qualifications for ijtihad is supposed to attempt his utmost to extract the actual meaning of the Qur'an and Sunna. If he does this to the best of his ability and with sincerity, he will be rewarded for accomplishing his duty, and nobody can accuse him of disregarding the Shari'a, even though his view may seem to be weaker when compared to others.

This is a natural and logical circumstance, certain to be found in every legal system.The established laws in every legal framework do not cover every minute detail and possible situation. Also, these laws are often open to more than one interpretation, and different courts of law, while attempting to understand them, often disagree about their meanings. One court may interpret the law in a particular way while another court may understand it in quite a different sense.Thus, nobody can say that the jurists have disrespected the laws of Islam by arriving at different opinions. And since every court of law intends to apply the established law to the best of its ability, its duty towards the Lawmaker (Allah Most High) will be discharged, and its jurists will be rewarded for it.

For example, if one of the courts mentioned earlier were a high court, all the lower courts and the people living under its authority would be bound to follow judgements made by the high court, even though their personal opinion might not conform to the opinion of the high court. In such a case, if the lower courts follow the decision of the high court, nobody can say that they are not following the law or that they take the high court to be a legislator of the law. This is because, in actual fact, the lower courts are following the decision of the high court as a trustworthy interpreter of the law, and not as a legislator

.In exactly the same way, the school of a Muslim jurist provides nothing more than a reliable interpretation of the Shari'a. Another qualified jurist may disagree regarding the interpretation of that jurist, but neither can he be accused of disregarding the laws of Shari'a, nor can anyone accuse the followers of a particular school of following something other than the Shari'a or of committing shirk. The reason for this is that these Muslims are following the school as a trustworthy interpretation of Shari'a.The next question which may arise here is: "What should a person do with regard to these different schools, and which one of them should he follow?"

The answer to this question is very simple. All of these schools have been sincere in their efforts to infer the true meaning of the Shari'a, therefore they are all equally valid. A person should follow the school of any of the recognized Imams whom he believes to be most knowledgeable and most pious.Although the Muslim jurists who have undertaken the exercise of ijtihad have been many in number, the schools of the four imams--Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Ahmad--are found to be more comprehensive, well-arranged, and well-preserved up to the present day, The Muslim Umma as a whole has taken these four Imams as having the most reliable interpretations of Shari'a.The four schools are known as the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools. The rest of the schools [madhhabs] are either not comprehensive enough, in the sense that they do not contain all aspects of Shari’a, or have not been preserved in a reliable form.For this reason, the majority of the Muslim Umma belongs to one of these four schools.

If a person adopts a school of Islamic law as an interpretation of the Shari’a, his obligation to follow the Shari’a stands fulfilled.This is the true picture of the term taqlid with reference to the jurisprudential schools. I hope this explanation will be sufficient to show that taqlid has nothing to do with shrik or “ascribing partners to Allah,” but is in fact a simple and easy way of following the shari’a.Mufti Muhammad Taqi UthmaniServant of Darul Uloom, KarachiAlbalagh Q&A by Mufti TaqiTaken from: Fiqh al-Imam Key Proofs In Hanafi Fiqh (Mufti Abdur Rahman Ibn Yusuf)