What is your esteemed opinion regarding the statement of "Ibn al-Jazari" in his "Introduction": "And taking on tajwid is a necessary obligation *** Whoever does not recite the Qur'an with tajwid is sinful"?

The questioner : A questioner says: "Ibn al-Jazari" said in his "Introduction":
"And taking on tajwid is a necessary obligation *** Whoever does not recite the Qur'an with tajwid is sinful
For by it the Divine was revealed *** And thus it reached us from Him."
What is your opinion of this statement? And what is obligatory for the Muslim in this matter?

The Shaykh : The truth is that I do not find in myself knowledge to answer this question, and I only say that all knowledge should be taken from the specialists in it. The Imam "al-Jazari" (may Allah have mercy on him), in addition to his leadership in the sciences of the Qur'an and tajwid, is also one of the scholars of hadith; he shares this aspect with "Ibn Kathir," where he combined many sciences such as tafsir, hadith, and history. So if he says this word, it is obligatory to follow him in it, considering that our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) commands us to do so in the generality of His saying (Mighty and Majestic): , and as we say on many occasions: Yes, we fight taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) and we forbid making it a religion to be followed; but we say: taqlid, as the Imam "al-Shafi'i" said regarding qiyas (analogical reasoning), qiyas, although it is one of the four pieces of evidence in the Shari'ah, is, as the Imam al-Shafi'i said, not resorted to except in dire necessity.
Yes, what were we discussing?

The questioner : We were discussing that taqlid.

The Shaykh : Yes.
So taqlid, at the time when we fight making it a religion and adopting it as a madhhab (school of jurisprudence), as is the case with the majority of Muslims today, unfortunately, but at the same time we say: it is like qiyas. The Imam al-Shafi'i said about qiyas: it is a dire necessity, and it is not resorted to except in dire necessity. Likewise, taqlid is not resorted to except in dire necessity. For example, a man who is a scholar of the Arabic language, but does not have fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), does not have knowledge of hadith regarding its authenticity and weakness; this person must follow the jurists and follow the hadith scholars. But whoever has some culture, his taqlid is lighter, because he has some awareness and general culture that helps him to understand the method of deduction, for example, with hadith. But what do the general people do? The general people ask the scholar. Their obligation is to seek out a scholar who is knowledgeable of the Book and the Sunnah; this is their obligation. But when he says: this is haram (forbidden), they must follow him. If they are able to understand where the prohibition came from? What is its origin? From the Book, from the Sunnah, from ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), then this is obligatory. But not everyone can do that; so taqlid is necessary.
I personally say a brief word regarding this question: I understand that the Ummah (the Muslim community) received the Qur'an with these rulings on which all the reciters agreed, for example, ikhfa (concealment), idhhar (clear pronunciation), ghunnah (nasalization), natural madd (elongation), connected madd, and disconnected madd. These things were received by the Ummah with acceptance, and there is no one who opposes them. So it is not permissible for a man who has no knowledge to say: What is the evidence that natural madd is elongated for two movements and not more? And the like of that. For this reason, we say this is reception; just as we received the Qur'an, we also received its recitation in this way. This is exactly like fiqh. Just as a large part of fiqh refers to the Book and the Sunnah, and fiqh issues are also of two types: a type for which there is evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, and they are undoubtedly the reference in case of disagreement, and there are deductive issues. So as for those of the deductive type, the matter is easy; if the student of knowledge is able to prefer one opinion over another with a criterion from the criteria mentioned in the books of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence), then that is fine; otherwise, whichever opinion he takes, he is, if Allah wills, excused by Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). Likewise, in what concerns the science of qira'at (the canonical recitations) and tajwid; there are issues on which there is agreement, so it is necessary to follow them in them without any discussion or debate. And there are issues on which there is disagreement, so whoever is able to prefer one opinion, as we said earlier regarding fiqh issues, does so. And whoever is not able, let him follow whichever opinion seems to him.
So I said: From the issues on which there is disagreement among the reciters is stopping at the beginnings of verses, even if they are connected to the verse that follows them. Some say stopping, and this is what we adopt. And some say: No, as long as the meaning is not complete, like His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): , so here stopping, these people say, is wrong, and rather connection is required.
We were able, when we stopped at the text and many of the early scholars of qira'at supported us in that, to determine that the correct view is stopping at the beginnings of verses, even if the verse is connected in meaning to the one after it; so in such a case, we were able to prefer one opinion. As for other matters, the person remains, as we said earlier, following an opinion, and he is excused, if Allah wills. So the statement of "Ibn al-Jazari" in this "poem" is the statement of a specialist scholar in his science; it should be followed unless his error becomes clear to us, and how unlikely that is!

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And beware of that.