Our Evidence for the Imitation
The jurisprudent scholars may set forth some Qur’anic verses as evidence for the dutifulness of imitation, such as the Saying of the Most High God:
فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
“So ask of those who know the Scripture if you know not” (Sura An-Nahl, 16:43).
They may also set forth some narratives like the one which is ascribed to Imam Al-Hassan Al-Askari (God’s peace bestowed upon him): "People must imitate the jurisprudent who protects his religion, preserves himself, opposes his own wishes, and follows his master’s order." 1
But the question which is addressed to us, the non-jurisprudents, is: Can we prove the dutifulness of the imitation by means of these verses and narratives?
The answer is that we cannot because the proof by means of them is subject to several issues which are not available in the ordinary i.e. non jurisprudent person. As regards the narrative which is ascribed to Imam Al-Askari (God’s peace bestowed upon him), how have we come to know that its ascription is well considered or not, so that we will build on it as evidence for the dutifulness of the imitation? And is this narrative contradicted by another one or not? And does this narrative carry the meaning of the dutifulness of imitation or not?
With respect to the above-mentioned verse, we wander about the ones who are meant by "…those who know the scripture…": Are they the Impeccable Imams only? Or does the verse include the scholars rather than the Imams also? For some people illustrate "…those who know the Scripture…" that they are the people of the Book. In addition, we wander whether the imperative form of "…So ask of…" implies the dutifulness or not.
The ordinary, non-jurisprudent, person cannot afford the answers to these questions, so how will he depend on them as evidence in his imitation?
Pay Attention
Never say that we depend on the jurisprudents as regards the proof of the considerability of the ascription of the narrative and on the scholars as regards that the imperative form implies the dutifulness.
Never say that here at the start of your questioning about your evidence for the imitation because it will be an answer justifying the imitation by the imitation. Then, you will be an imitator, and your evidence will be the imitation itself.
This resembles to say: I imitate because that reference says that imitation is a duty which is imposed on the person who cannot be a jurisprudent and who cannot work on the basis of taking cautiousness. The one who says this is setting forth his imitation of the others as evidence for his imitation of the others. Is it sound that the very thing be evidence for itself?
Setting The Trajectory Right
What is, therefore, our evidence, we who have not been successful to jurisprudence, for the imitation?
Actually, the answer originates from our minds and from our examination of the state of the rational society. We realize that "when people face the needs of life, they find that they are so many, for there are medical, industrial, agricultural, geometrical, etc. needs."
"All the people know these needs very well. This is so because every human being, due to the naïve experience in his life, knows that if he is suddenly exposed to a cold weather, he may be afflicted with the symptoms of fever. Still, he does not come to know the ways of protection and cure but through the doctor who in turn does not come to know them but through study and labour. Likewise, is the case in the fields of building and construction, agriculture, and industry along with all their branches."
"From here, every human being has come to realize that practically he cannot by himself carry out the comprehensive scientific study and labour in all the fields of life. This is so because this usually goes beyond the ability and the lifetime of the individual on the one hand; also, he cannot go so much deep in all the fields on the other hand."
"Consequently, the human societies have decided that a group of people specialize in one field of knowledge and study. And every individual, as regards the field in which he is not specialized, suffices with what he innately knows and depends, with respect to what exceeds the innate knowledge, on the specialists, thus assigning them with the responsibility of the discretion of the situation".
"This is a sort of labour division among the people which the human being has been innately following since the furthest ages."
"Islam was no exception to this. It followed the same base which the human being has been following in all the fields of his life, so it presented the tenet of jurisprudence and the tenet of imitation. Jurisprudence is the specialization in the sciences of the religion, and imitation is the dependence on the specialists."
"Every Muslim who has become religiously responsible and wants to get acquainted with the religious rules depends at first on his general religious innate. And as regards the religious rules which he cannot know by the innate nature, he depends on the specialized jurisprudent."
The Most High God did not assign every human being with the job of jurisprudence and with the undergoing of the scientific study and labor in order to get acquainted with the religious rules for the sake of saving time and dividing the human labor all over the fields of life."
"Moreover, The Most Glorified and High God did not permit that the non-jurisprudent and specialist tries to get a direct knowledge of the religious rules from the Qur’an and the Sunnah and depends on his own attempt. The Most High God decreed that the acquaintance with the religious rule must be through the imitation and through the dependence on the jurisprudent scholars."2
The answer which we, the non jurisprudents, must afford as regards the dutifulness of the imitation originates from our minds’ reading of the state of the rational human society. By this, we will not be imitators in our answer but will be jurisprudentially trying to get acquainted by means of our minds with the dutifulness of the imitation.
Because of this, when Imam Al-Khamene’i (May God lengthen his presence among us) was asked in the first question in The Answers to the Consultations: "Is the dutifulness of the imitation an issue of imitation or jurisprudence?" he answered, "It is a mental jurisprudential issue."3
When the non-jurisprudent person faces the following question: "What is your evidence for the dutifulness of the imitation?" What must his answer be?
| The Answer | True or False | The Reason |
|---|---|---|
|
1. The Qur’anic Verse: “So ask of those who know the Scripture if you know not” (16:43). |
False | Because one cannot make sure of who the ones meant are |
| 2. The Narrative ascribed to Imam Al-Hasan Al- Askari (‘a): "People must imitate the jurisprudent who protects his religion, preserves himself, opposes his own wishes, and follows his master’s order." | False | Because one cannot make sure of the correctness of its ascription |
| 3. To say that a certain jurisprudent says that the imitation is dutiful | False | Because it is a proof of the imitation by the imitation itself |
| 4. The agreement of the rational people on that the non-specialist must refer to the specialist | True | This issue is based on the sound intuition of the mind |
So have we seen that the human being, through the mental examination and through his being one of the rational individuals of this society, deduces that it is necessary, as regards the affairs of his religion, to refer to the specialists.
Here arises a question: Is the imitation dutiful on every human being? Or is it dutiful only on certain people rather than other people?
In other words, are there specific conditions for the dutifulness of the imitation? Or is it general for everybody?
Here is the answer.
