The Duty of Emulation: A historical account.

Q: How do you view the allegation that says that emulation is an innovation that was not discussed in the books of jurisprudence, and consequently in its not binding?

A: This allegation is not accurate from the practical and realistic point of view. For emulation is an instinctive attitude practiced by all those who do not have knowledge about their responsibility in life.

Those people instinctively search for someone to emulate and provide them with justifications and excuses for doing something or for leaving it.

And since that there are many Muslims who do not possess a comprehensive knowledge of the rulings of Islam, and since Islam represents the law the Muslims should abide by in all aspects of their life and will stand before God to be judged if they followed it, people used to ask the learnt religious scholars among them about Islamic rulings .In doing this they were following a well established tradition, that started with the Muslims asking the Messenger(p.) since they knew all about the Message he brought up. The vast number of verses in the Holy Quran that start with: “They ask you” shows that the Muslims used to ask the Prophet(p.) instinctively about anything they did not understand or that they should know.

The Glorious Quran confirmed this attitude when it complained against those who claimed that they did not know.

{Ask the knowledgeable if you know not}. It also called for the necessity of keeping a group of people back at home at the time of war so that they would admonish the others, for what could be considered as a similar reason:{ And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious? }

After the death of the Prophet the Muslims used to ask the companions and then the Imams who used to sit down and answer any question whether ideological or legal. In this respect, most of the rulings that make up the traditions we rely upon was based on answering questions, rather than the method of lectures and sermons.

Then the Shiites continued with this tradition, especially that Imam Al-Mahdi (May Allah hasten his relief ) said: “As for new events, you ought to go back to those who narrate our traditions…”.

Jurisprudence of Life

Emulation is a culture

On the other hand, and although some might question its authenticity, the Shiites cite this tradition as a proof for the need to emulate:

The ones among the jurists who immune themselves, preserve their religion and do not follow their passions, the people can emulate them.

Thus, we saw that the Shiites referred to their scholars, but it is not clear that there was a supreme authority, whether a single person or several persons that they emulated in a comprehensive manner, since at that time, they did not have the means to be on a constant touch with one person which made it impractical or unrealistic for Shiites to go back to the scholars in all matters.

They used to go back to the religious authorities in their own areas, and some of them, like Sheik at Mufied and Sayyed Al-Murtada, became so famous that they were referred to by Shiites in remote places, but this does not mean they constituted what could amount to a supreme authority, whether in its comprehensiveness, or in its prorogation in time.

Thus we saw that the Shiites in Iran referred to the Iranian scholars, while the Lebanese or Iraqi Shiites went back to their compatriots. Sometimes an extraordinary authority used to emerge, which people used to refer to, but not in an extensive or comprehensive manner.

Therefore, from a historical perspective we could talk about the absence of a supreme religious authority. Nevertheless, emulation did exist, being a natural thing in man's life where the ignorant asks the knowledgeable.

Conditions of emulation

Q: But we notice that the issue of emulation has become a major topic that is divided into sub issues, like knowledge and being alive, male and just. Are these conditions of the kind impelled by the mind, or are they a result of the natural development of the science of jurisprudence?

A: The concept of emulation was not a complicated one that requires the kind of thorough discussions the scholars have embarked on today. People used to refer their clerics in a spontaneous and natural way without distinguishing between the dead and the living, or between the knowledgeable and the most knowledgeable. They used to be satisfied by that the one they referred to was a scholar who has leant jurisprudence so that they can be excused before God.

They might have depended on the views of dead scholars, not on the basis of continuing to emulate the dead only, but also emulating the dead from the beginning.  Traditions suggest that the influence of the Sheik Al-Tousi extended for a long time after his death, and not only on his students but also on the people whose life and thoughts were dominated by this influence.

I, therefore, believe that there were no complications in this sphere: People used to go back to the dead and the living, the knowledgeable and the less knowledgeable, in a very natural or spontaneous way, since the notion was introduced at a later time on the basis of the supreme authority.  But this does not mean that the jurists did not discuss the issue of the knowledgeable, but not in the manner discussed today.

Thus, emulation was not a problematic issue. People used to practice it in a very simple manner, just like the issue of Niyyat (intention) which was not discussed by the previous scholars.

The issue of Niyyat is not a complicated one. One cannot worship Allah unless he intends to. No one can worship Allah without willing and intending to do so. Moreover, Niyyat is automatically linked to pleasing Allah. But the jurists who came at a later time, used to be too rational in their discussions that they made suppositions of virtual cases, thus complicating issues, which were actually simple.

Emulating a dead Religious Authority

Emulation of a dead scholar is based on being the rational attitude to follow. The ignorant in all times and places will refer to the knowledgeable whether dead tens of years ago or living. To go back to a dead expert in any branch of knowledge is something rational, because it is meaningless for a material life to be of relevance to the soundness of the opinion.

For an opinion to be sound it is enough that when the opinion is made the scholar is of sound mind, experience and knowledge. What happens to him later, like illness or death, is irrelevant.

That is why we find that people go back to the dead whether as an on-going practice or right form the beginning. This is why the jurists who came before us used to adopt the opinions of those before them since they have a significant scientific value. Thus, the issue of whether emulating a dead scholar is permissible, was not a controversial one at that time.

We consider the issue of emulation as an innate one that is based on the practice of the ignorant going back to the knowledgeable. It is not a worshiping rite. The rationalists believe that the opinion of any man with knowledge in any field of science is an argument (evidence) in this field. And there is no need in our view for any legal authorization, because the intellectual argument is sufficient as an excuse if it turns out to be wrong, as well as when it turns to be right.

We also do not find any basis for emulating a living jurist, and we do not think that it constitutes a problem.

If the jurists who came later on have talked about being alive as a condition to accept the juristic opinion, it is because they have turned to the complicated philosophical aspects which if we review we cannot but pity them, for they did not rely on the scientific ways of discussing an issue.

They kept asking: Does the dead person have an opinion or not?  They also discussed other irrelevant things as does his spirit remain, and does his opinion remain with his spirit… things that have nothing to do with his judgment that was based or his intellectual capabilities.

What would happen later on does not make the opinion, not an opinion. The opinion of the jurist represents his opinion at a given time, regardless of the changes that follow in his mental and emotional state. If not, how could we defend the authenticity of his opinion when he is asleep… or when he falls under great pressures.

We know that there are many jurists who forget some of their Fatwas, due to the sheer size of them. They would go back to them when they are asked, because they cannot possibility memorize all of their fatwas.

Yet, we deduce from Allah's sayings: {Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not! }– { And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious?} That the answer one gets from the followers of remembrance is an evidence against him, and that he could convey it to others. Thus, those who hear a warning would still act accordingly, even if the warner dies; they would also convey it to others and to their families.

Furthermore, I was neither unique nor the first to say that the emulation of a dead scholar is permissible. Great scholars, like Al-Qimi, author of the Qawanien, saw that it is permissible either right from the start or in continuation, in case the scholar dies.

Consensus does not apply in this case, because it only appeared later on; that is when philosophical considerations penetrated the field of juristic judgment, without any firm and sound foundations.