Across religions, scholars, shaykhs, and religious leaders interpret religious teachings and instruct people in matters of religious beliefs, rules, and regulations. It is equally natural in Islam for our ʿulamāʾ and shaykhs to explain various aspects of the religion and impart religious knowledge and guidance.
For those of us who have little knowledge of the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth—or whose knowledge is insufficient—it is only natural that we follow the religious guidance, advice, and teachings of qualified scholars. The Qurʾān and Ḥadīth contain clear instructions on this matter.
However, we must maintain one essential principle: whenever we become reliably convinced, through our own study or the findings of a trustworthy and knowledgeable person, that a scholar’s opinion on a particular matter contradicts the Qurʾān and authentic Ḥadīth, our duty is to refrain from acting upon that opinion and instead follow what is established as correct by the Qurʾān and authentic Sunnah.
There is no doubt that Islam accords scholars a distinguished status. Throughout history, they have also played a highly effective role in disseminating and advancing the religion.
Nevertheless, it is equally true that none of them is infallible or entirely free from error. They may naturally make mistakes or experience lapses in judgment. Consequently, the statement of any scholar, in and of itself, does not constitute an independent proof in religious matters.
A scholar or a walī—a revered saintly figure—whose outward conduct and inward life conform to the Sharīʿah and Sunnah is certainly worthy of being followed. However, this status does not arise from any claim to infallibility, nor is following such a person an unconditional obligation.
If a statement or action of theirs appears to contradict the Sharīʿah, it is never permissible to use that statement or action as a justification for violating any injunction of the religion.
Thus, we are not required to accept every opinion or idea merely because a particular scholar has expressed it, without any examination or verification. Rather, every such opinion must be assessed in the light of the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth.
Just as it is inappropriate to harbour ill thoughts about a scholar or revered religious figure, or to ridicule them because of a mistake, it is equally inappropriate to regard everything they say as infallible and final merely because of their distinguished status.
On one occasion, Shaykh Naṣīr al-Dīn Dehlawī (raḥimahullāh), while objecting to an action of his spiritual guide, Khwāja Niẓām al-Dīn Awliyāʾ (raḥimahullāh), reportedly remarked to other disciples:
*Fiʿl al-mashāʾikh ḥujjat nabāshad*—“The actions of spiritual masters do not constitute proof.”
When Niẓām al-Dīn Awliyāʾ heard this remark, rather than taking offence, he explicitly affirmed:
*Naṣīr al-Dīn rāst mīgūyad*—“Naṣīr al-Dīn has spoken the truth.”
When disciples of Ḥājjī Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī (raḥimahullāh) sought to use various shortcomings in his conduct as evidence in their arguments, his distinguished student, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (raḥimahullāh), would say:
“The words and actions of pīrs and spiritual masters cannot be used as independent proof. Proof in religious matters is established through the words and actions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and, after him, through the teachings of the mujtahid imams. Therefore, citing Ḥājjī Ṣāḥib’s opinion does not settle a question of Sharīʿah.”
He further stated:
“If someone’s spiritual guide instructs him to do something contrary to the Sharīʿah, it is not permissible to obey that instruction. Rather, correcting the guide is an essential duty of the disciple.”
It is, however, deeply regrettable that various communities in the past came to believe in the *ʿiṣmah*, or infallibility, of their prominent scholars, saints, and religious leaders, accepting their opinions as the ultimate truth of religion. Placing excessive confidence in their piety and knowledge, they effectively accorded their opinions a status comparable to revelation.
As a result, revelation itself lost much of its independent authority in their eyes. Whatever interpretation these scholars and religious leaders offered came to be regarded as final. The underlying attitude was that ordinary people could not understand revelation for themselves; it was not meant for them. Whatever verdict a religious authority, mystic, or revered scholar pronounced was treated as the sole valid interpretation of revelation.
One of the significant causes of division and confusion within the Muslim Ummah has likewise been the uncritical acceptance of the statements of scholars, religious authorities, and revered figures from different periods as unquestionably true and final.
Historically, certain Shīʿī groups were among the earliest to promote doctrines concerning the infallibility of imams and revered figures, as well as the purported infallibility of their *ʿilm ladunnī* (divinely bestowed esoteric knowledge), *kashf* (spiritual unveiling), and *ilhām* (inspiration). Later, during periods of political weakness in the Muslim Ummah, groups such as the Qarmaṭians, Fāṭimids, Ismāʿīlīs, Bāṭinīs, Nuṣayrīs, and Druze gained considerable influence in Muslim society. Many otherwise pious individuals were also influenced by their ideas.
Eventually, the opinions of scholars, religious authorities, and revered figures came to be treated as definitive. To determine with certainty which statements were correct and which were mistaken, people no longer turned to the Qurʾān, Ḥadīth, or the practices and lives of the noble Companions. Instead, they simply asked what a particular scholar had said or what opinion a particular saint had held. If that individual had expressed an opinion, people felt little hesitation in believing and following it.
In doing so, they gave little consideration to whether the person’s views were actually sound and correct when examined in the light of the Qurʾān and Sunnah. In effect, people’s faith became dependent upon the opinions of particular individuals. Neither the words of Allah nor the teachings of His Messenger ﷺ were allowed to override those opinions.
From the perspective of the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth, this approach is profoundly reprehensible. It is a major source of misguidance. In such circumstances, people become blind followers of other human beings. Instead of remaining servants of Allah, they effectively become subservient to those individuals.
In the Qurʾān, Allah Most High describes this kind of attitude as, in effect, taking religious scholars and spiritual authorities as lords besides Him. Condemning this practice among the Jews and Christians, Allah says:
﴿اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَهًا وَاحِدًا﴾
“They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and so have they taken the Messiah, son of Mary, whereas they were commanded to worship none but One God.”
It is important to understand that the Jews and Christians did not necessarily address their scholars and monks explicitly as *lords*. Rather, they obeyed them unquestioningly in all circumstances, making their religion and faith entirely dependent upon the conduct and pronouncements of these religious authorities. In that process, neither the Book of Allah nor the words and actions of His Messenger were allowed to serve as the decisive criterion.
This verse therefore teaches that accepting and following the words of scholars and spiritual authorities indiscriminately, without regard for revelation, is tantamount to treating them as lords besides Allah. Such an attitude constitutes manifest disbelief.
Mawlānā Thanāʾullāh Pānīpatī (raḥimahullāh), in his commentary on the Qurʾānic verse—
وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ
“Nor should any of us take others as lords besides Allah” (Āl ʿImrān, 3:64)—
explains its implication as follows:
“If a ḥadīth of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is authentically established for someone, free from any known contradiction, and no abrogating evidence has been conclusively established to his knowledge, then, for example, even if the fatwā of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) happens to differ from it, and one of the four imams has acted upon that ḥadīth, it becomes obligatory for that person to act upon the ḥadīth. His rigid adherence to his madhhab must not prevent him from doing so. To act otherwise would amount to taking one another as lords besides Allah.”
ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās (raḍiyallāhu ʿanhumā) is reported to have said:
يوشك أن تنزل عليكم حجارة من السماء، أقول: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وتقولون: قال أبو بكر و عمر!!
“Stones from the heavens are about to descend upon you! I say, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,’ and you say, ‘Abū Bakr and ʿUmar said!’”
The meaning of his statement is that no one’s opinion may be accepted in opposition to the words of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, even if that person is Abū Bakr or ʿUmar (raḍiyallāhu ʿanhumā). How, then, can the opinion of anyone else be placed above the statement of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?
Imām al-Bukhārī (raḥimahullāh) is reported to have said that he heard his teacher, al-Ḥumaydī (raḥimahullāh), recount the following incident:
“Once, we were sitting in a gathering of Imām al-Shāfiʿī (raḥimahullāh) when a man came and asked him about a legal question. Imām al-Shāfiʿī replied, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ ruled as follows.’
“Upon hearing this answer, the man asked, ‘But what is your own opinion?’
“Imām al-Shāfiʿī, astonished, exclaimed:
سُبْحَانَ اللهِ! تَرَانِي فِي كَنِيسَةٍ! تَرَانِي فِي بِيْعَةٍ! تَرَى عَلَى وَسَطِي زُنَّارًا؟! أَقُولُ لَكَ: قَضَى رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَأَنْتَ تَقُولُ: مَا تَقُولُ أَنْتَ؟!
“Glory be to Allah! Do you think I am in a church or a synagogue? Do you see a *zunnār* (the distinctive girdle associated with non-Muslims) around my waist? I am telling you that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ ruled thus, and you ask me what my own opinion is?!”
On another occasion, someone told Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (raḥimahullāh) that ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak (raḥimahullāh) had expressed a particular view on an issue. Imām Aḥmad replied:
ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ لَمْ يَنْزِلْ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ
“Ibn al-Mubārak did not descend from the heavens.”
The point of these statements is clear: the eminence, piety, and scholarly standing of an individual do not render every statement he makes infallible or binding.
Therefore, just as it is deeply reprehensible to ridicule or speak disparagingly of scholars and revered religious figures, it is equally inappropriate—and profoundly dangerous—to believe that every statement of any particular scholar or revered figure is the sole, unquestionable, and final truth, and to follow it blindly without examination.