Some Salafis frequently use the phrase "our Shaykh said" in their writings. Is this considered taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence)?

The questioner : Our teacher, there is no doubt that one of the most important features of the Salafi da'wah (calling others to Islam) is rejecting rigidity and madhhab (school of jurisprudence) fanaticism. However, we notice in the writings of some Salafi individuals what indicates that they are on the path of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence). For example, in the book of the author of "The Bid'ah (religious innovation) of Madhhab Fanaticism," we find in his book the repeated phrase "our Shaykh said," "our Shaykh said." Is this not considered a type of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence)? May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : This question is very important. Since we have spoken about it, I will answer briefly. I say: No person is free from taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence). No person can be free from it, no matter how high and elevated he is, or if he is one of the great scholars. The brother...The questioner : ...apparently has this reality in mind, which is what we deny and we keep repeating the denial of. It is not merely taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), which no person is free from after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). The taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) that we deny is for Muslims to take taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) as a religion, to worship and draw near to Allah by following a specific person. As for if a Muslim is from the general Muslims, as we mentioned earlier in the commentary on the saying of the Exalted: "those who do not know, they are the majority of the people," and now we place...The questioner : ...before this question: When a man from the general people comes and asks a scholar—not a scholar in the sense we considered weaker earlier, but a scholar in the stronger sense, which is knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah—the layman comes and asks this scholar about a certain issue, and he answers him and he goes on his way. What do we call this layman's adoption of that scholar's answer? You and I will call it taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), as I assume, but...The questioner : ...do you agree with me in this? Do you call it taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence)?

The questioner : If it is not based on evidence, then he is a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).

The Shaykh : I did not say "based on evidence." You, just stay with me. A man came to a scholar and asked him about an issue, and he answered him with what he knows?

The questioner : Yes, he is a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).

The Shaykh : He is a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence). Is it permissible for him to take this opinion or not?

The questioner : This depends, Shaykh, on his scholarly rank. Is he...

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you. I am asking you about a layman?

The questioner : Undoubtedly, the layman follows (is a muqallid).

The Shaykh : Okay, why, my brother, do you not follow me? I say that the Qur'an divided the Ummah (the Muslim community) into two groups: scholars and non-scholars. Among these scholars, there are laymen, and there are educated people. An educated person might be a doctor in medicine, but he is more ignorant than Abu Jahil in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), for example. But the general Muslims have no knowledge of the rulings of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law). He comes and says, for example, "I did such and such and said such and such, and my wife was divorced or not divorced," and so on. I tell him, "No, she was not divorced." I tell him: "May Allah reward you with good." He adopts this opinion and goes to live with his wife as he did before. Is this taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) or not?

The questioner : It is taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, is this permissible or not permissible?

The questioner : It is permissible.

The Shaykh : It is permissible. So we must distinguish between permissible taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) and impermissible taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), and this is what we must clarify for people. We now know what permissible taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) is, and it is that which even scholars cannot be free from. For example, the great Companions used to follow one another. Why? Because they acknowledged, as the Lord of the Worlds said: What is not permissible? If he asked and was answered, and then it became clear to him later that this answer contradicts a text in the Book or in the Sunnah, and he keeps saying, "No, I am a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) of so-and-so," whether this so-and-so is alive or dead, the important thing is that he does not deviate from adhering to the opinion of one scholar. This is what we refer to by the phrase "religion by taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence)." This is not permissible. So if you see a person who benefits from a scholar, a person he believes has some knowledge, what bothers you about this? You, or someone more knowledgeable than you, cannot say "al-Bukhari said such and such," or "Muslim said such and such," "Abu Hanifah said such and such," "Al-Shafi'i said such and such." But the scholar is like the bee, choosing from every flower what contains beneficial nourishment. As for the one who does not know, Imam Al-Shafi'i gave a wonderful example of this ignorant person who is a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence). He said: "The example of the muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) is like the woodcutter who gathers wood at night, then throws this wood on his back, and in it is a viper that may bite him while he is unaware." Why? Because he gathered wood from here and there. And so, taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) is not knowledge, as we explained earlier. But this does not mean that scholars do not benefit from one another, or that they do not trust one another. And I truly find this question very strange, coming from a person we know is with us on the Book and the Sunnah. But it appears that he imagines that merely belonging to the Book and the Sunnah means he is able to exercise ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) in every issue, and not mention from his knowledge this issue or that.