The questioner’s query regarding the intermediate rank between ijtihad and taqlid that the Shaykh affirms, which is the rank of ittibaa’ (following).

The questioner : Regarding your statement, I believe that the difference between you and many others might be resolved if certain matters were clarified. You say that if a scholar narrates a hadith and understands it... but you... at that time, and that is a condition... as you say... practice... some of the texts from the scholars of knowledge... at that time, without a doubt, it... does not in any way mean that he has exited taqlid, otherwise you would agree with this point, rather he remains a muqallid (one who follows a scholar), and let him remain a muqallid...

The Shaykh : Pardon me, I said a muqallid with an extra... always a muqallid with an extra... is better than a muqallid with zero extra; so I hope this point will be circled around.

The questioner : Yes, I believe...

The Shaykh : Good, please go ahead.

The questioner : We mentioned a rank, as if you are saying that there are three ranks.

The Shaykh : That there is what?

The questioner : Three ranks.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : The rank of ijtihad, the rank of taqlid, and an intermediate rank... more than my own wording, you call it ittibaa’ (following).

The Shaykh : And that is what he explicitly stated...
Yes.

The questioner : So we need first someone from the scholars of knowledge before you who explicitly stated this rank, second: that... he gives it a meaning... that it is acting upon a hadith on the condition that previous scholars have acted upon it, and this means in another way that he followed an imam while knowing his evidence, and he did not exit taqlid. He followed an imam.

The Shaykh : This one who is followed...?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : ...the one who remained a muqallid, and that... the third rank is either that he encompassed the issue he is researching with all its evidence and all its aspects of derivation; so he was a mujtahid (one who exercises independent reasoning) in this issue, or that he returned to the evidence... to the practice of the scholars of knowledge; so he was a muqallid specifically in this issue.

The Shaykh : We have... a little, do you permit a little?

The questioner: Go ahead.

The Shaykh : We have a hadith, we said: it is a text; not a derivation.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, you... say that it is derived and so on, the research now regarding this group is a hadith that is a text on the subject and does not need derivation, and being a text on the subject, it has a guarantee that he will not fall into error, his error is forgiven, that some of the previous imams preceded him in acting upon this hadith, so here the issue of derivation does not apply; because this is the function of the mujtahid.

The questioner : You are correct.

The Shaykh : Okay, at that time your statement comes: it has no meaning; we say: a muqallid with an extra who knew a hadith and agreed with his muqallid is better than a muqallid who did not know a hadith; this is a self-evident matter.

The questioner : Yes, but both cases remain.

The Shaykh : No problem, but I want to understand your word "no meaning"; what: no meaning?

The questioner : That is: it does not take him to the third rank instead of the issue of taqlid.

The Shaykh : He is now - without offense - there is no disagreement between us in terms of wording.

The questioner : Pardon me, I said: the first.

The Shaykh : Allow me a little, allow me a little.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I am not concerned with the wording as much as I am concerned with the reality.

The questioner : Which one?

The Shaykh : It is: is a muqallid with zero extra better or a muqallid with a hadith extra?

The questioner : A muqallid with extra with...

The Shaykh : Very good, so this, what do we call this?

The questioner : A muqallid of an imam with knowledge of his imam’s evidence.

The Shaykh : Very good; so if people increase, and do not forget your previous question; if people increase, they called this type a muqallid who followed his imam’s evidence; this phrase, in brief, they called it ittibaa’ (following); what is wrong with this?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : If you permit me, what is wrong with this as long as the intention is to express an acknowledged reality? This acknowledged reality, you explicitly stated it; and it is a muqallid with an extra who knows the imam’s evidence is better than a muqallid with zero extra, and I named this one who follows his imam, I do not contradict you in this naming; because the naming and the words are all means to express what is in the heart.

The questioner : Excellent.

The Shaykh : Good, but I see that you should treat me in kind, and not make the issue very important as long as it is a terminological convention, and I do not mean by this that I will not answer your question: "Who said ittibaa’ (following)?" which is an intermediate rank between taqlid and ijtihad, you asked this, I will answer you on this, but I tell you with complete frankness this is a question of terminological issues, we want you to be with us on this truth which is that a muqallid with a hadith extra is better than a muqallid with zero extra.

The questioner : And in both there is good.

The Shaykh : Both are good, but , but there remains a higher good and a lower good, so our research now is in the higher, not the lower, and this is what I clarify by saying: a muqallid with zero extra is less than a muqallid with a hadith extra, and this reality is agreed upon; so I hope there will not remain a terminological disagreement, a purely terminological disagreement, with that meaning... regarding your question I tell you: this term - may Allah bless you - is known among the scholars, how is that? Meaning the Muslim man who is not a scholar, if he knows the evidence of the opinion he followed first, as we agreed - and praise be to Allah - this is better than the one who did not know the evidence, second: this is called a muttabi’ (one who follows).

Another questioner : A muqallid of a group.

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner : He is called a muqallid.

The Shaykh : No, this is a muqallid and this is a muqallid, but we say: a muqallid with an extra who knows the imam’s evidence.

Another questioner : But he does not exit being a muqallid!

The Shaykh : It does not concern us... it does not concern us, but this is a muttabi’ (one who follows).

The questioner : We note this; this is a muttabi’ (one who follows), a third rank, where did we come from?

The Shaykh : This is an intermediate rank.

The questioner : An intermediate rank.

The Shaykh : Yes, yes.

The questioner : It means the number, and not the order.

The Shaykh : This is from the book of Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, do you know him?

The questioner : Al-Qurtubi.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, "Fadl al-‘Ilm wa Bayanihi" (The Virtue of Knowledge and Its Explanation), and this book has been printed for twenty or thirty years, and he is one of the imams of hadith and fiqh, so he explicitly states this rank, the rank of ittibaa’ (following), it is not pure taqlid... - also - you will agree with us on this, taqlid is taken from the necklace (qaladah), so he asks the scholar and he gives him a fatwa and he follows him, like this; therefore they noted the reality among people, as there are mujtahids and there are muqallids, there is an intermediate class, and this intermediate one can also be divided into classes, meaning... much following and little following, meaning a person might be a muqallid of a lower rank in all issues, but in one issue he knew the imam’s evidence, so there might be another person in five issues, and so on; so these are degrees, we have no concern with these details. But the rank of ittibaa’ (following) was explicitly stated by the scholars, among them the Hafiz of the Maghrib "Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr" in his book "Fadl al-‘Ilm wa Bayanihi". Similarly, Imam "Abu al-Hasan al-Sindi" stated it in his commentary on the marginal notes of Sunan al-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah and others, also al-Fullani in his book "Iqaz al-Humam" (Awakening the Hearts), and this - also - has been printed in Egypt for about twenty years or more; so may Allah bless you, many, very many, have explicitly stated this, also among them "Wali Allah al-Dahlawi" in his book "Hujjat Allah al-Balighah" (The Conclusive Argument of Allah), and in a specific treatise of his named "Taqlid al-Jayyid li-Martabat al-Ittiba’ wa al-Taqlid" (The Good Taqlid for the Rank of Following and Taqlid), or something similar to this, a very small treatise printed in India, this is a lot and very much of it.

The questioner : Meaning you say that the rank of ittibaa’ (following) is a rank - Shaykh - customary among the scholars of knowledge and known.

The Shaykh: It is known.

The questioner : And that they all did not attach to it a specific detail that returns this rank to one of the two ranks; because they all stopped at it as a final rank and did not come with a detail; this detail either returns it to a rank in this issue so it is attached to the mujtahids in it, or returns it to the rank of taqlid.

The Shaykh : Here is what I mentioned to you; taqlid with zero extra is less than taqlid with a hadith extra.

The questioner : This is a research - Shaykh - that posits that the muttabi’ (one who follows), that ittibaa’ (following) is a new intermediate rank with its own specifications and its own people, and that it takes him out of the name muqallid and gives him a new rank which, according to what you say, is the opinion of the majority of the scholars of knowledge, we must say...

The Shaykh : I do not say the majority, and I am not concerned with the majority; because I have clarified to you that this is a research in a discussion of words; because the reality.