Why is it not permissible to follow the deceased (taqlīd al-mayyit) according to some marajiʿ? Could you briefly enlighten us?
In the Name of Allah, the All-beneficent, the All-merciful
And blessings and peace be upon the noblest of creation, our master Muhammad, and his pure progeny.
The issue of (following the deceased) from among the marajiʿ consists of two parts: one part is the issue of remaining in taqlid of the deceased after one had been following him during his lifetime; and the issue of following the deceased initially, that is, at the beginning of one’s taqlid one chooses a marjaʿ from among the dead—is this permissible or not permissible?
The second issue is, as it seems, the foundation, because it constitutes the founding case for the remaining branches, though some have held the opposite. It seems that (following the deceased initially) is the subject of the question. Because this is an issue in which disagreement has occurred, the evidential discussions of it are very long, owing to the many proofs presented in it and the debate over them; so it is quite difficult to summarize all aspects of the issue and do it full scholarly justice. However, we will try to shed light on the features of the issue as cultural background, while the issue remains a subject of research in the field of the jurists’ deliberation on it—particularly between the Usuli school, whose well-known view upheld the impermissibility of following the deceased initially, and the Akhbari school, which upheld the permissibility of following a deceased mujtahid initially. All are deserving of respect, and in what has been put forward in the details of the issue there are sound arguments.
But, as it seems, the most important pillars of the position that it is not permissible to follow the deceased initially are three:
The first: They have adduced as evidence the generality of the verses and narrations that direct people to the scholars and that set out their tasks, such as (“Ask the People of the Reminder” (Qurʾan 16:43; 21:7)) and (“and to warn their people when they return to them” (Qurʾan 9:122)). They said that asking is possible only of the living, and returning to the people and warning them is possible only for the living; this is not possible for the dead.
Likewise in the narrations, such as the direction of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) with (the two should look to the one who is from among you) and (whoever among the jurists guards his self… then it is for the common people to follow him), for that is apparent in intending the living.
The second: From the narrational proofs that explicitly state recourse to the living scholar, such as what has been narrated from Yaʿqub al-Sarraj, who said to Abu ʿAbd Allah (a): (Can the earth remain without a living, manifest scholar to whom people resort concerning what is lawful and unlawful for them? He (a) said to me: Then Allah would not be worshipped, O Abu Yusuf).
The third: The living [jurist] is able to issue fatwas according to the renewal of reality. Although rulings are fixed, there are many rulings that change according to the change of their subject; indeed, it may be said that ijtihād, for the most part, is the application of the verses, narrations and principles to reality, which calls for the need for a living jurist.
This is in addition to the transactions that may newly arise in every era, and whose ruling is to be derived from the Shariʿa, which is characterized by being valid for every time.
Yes, they have debated these proofs and others, and there are also responses to those debates. As an outcome of those debates, most jurists have held that one may remain in taqlid of the deceased if one had referred to him while he was alive, whereas in newly arising issues one refers to the living [jurist].
This is merely an overview of the subject of the question, and not an advocacy of a particular opinion.
May Allah grant you success in what pleases Him.
Sayed Mahmoud Al-Mosawi