Tafsir of Luqman 31:21

"And when it is said to them"—that is, to those who argue, with the plural used in consideration of the meaning—"Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers upon." They intend by this the worship of what they worshipped besides Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. This is explicit in prohibiting blind imitation (taqlid) in the fundamentals of religion, and the matter is one of dispute. The view held by the majority, and favored by Imam al-Razi and al-Amidi, is that taqlid is not permissible in the fundamentals; rather, intellectual investigation (nazar) is mandatory.

Others, such as Ubaydullah ibn al-Hasan al-Anbari and a group, held the view that it is permissible. Some have even said that it is the obligation of the legally responsible person (mukallaf), and that investigation and independent reasoning (ijtihad) regarding this are forbidden. In any case, the creeds of a truth-following imitator are valid, even if he is sinful for abandoning investigation according to the first view.

It is reported from al-Ash'ari that his faith is not valid. Ustadh Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri said: "This is falsely attributed to him, as it would necessitate declaring the common folk—who constitute the majority of believers—to be disbelievers."

The verified position is this: If taqlid is taking the statement of another without proof while being susceptible to doubt and illusion—such that the imitator is not certain—then it is absolutely insufficient for faith, because there is no faith with the slightest hesitation. However, if it is done with certainty, then it is sufficient according to al-Ash'ari and others, contrary to Abu Hashim, who said it is not sufficient; rather, for faith to be valid, investigation is indispensable. Al-Khafaji mentioned that there is no disagreement regarding the prohibition of imitating one who is not known to be relying upon a true proof. The evident condemnation of those who argue without knowledge, guidance, or an enlightening scripture indicates that a true transmitted proof (dalil naqli) is sufficient in investigation, just as a rational proof (dalil 'aqli) is sufficient.

"Even if Satan were inviting them"—that is, inviting their fathers, not them themselves, as has been said. For the pivot of the rejection of following others is that the followed were themselves followers of Satan. This is proclaimed by the Almighty's saying: "Or even if their fathers did not understand anything and were not guided," following His saying, exalted is He: "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers upon." From this, one understands the state when the pronoun refers to the collective group—that is, those arguing and their fathers—"to the punishment of the Blazing Fire."

This refers to that which leads to, or is caused by, polytheism, the denial of the encompassment of His power—the Mighty and Majestic—regarding resurrection, and similar deviations. It is permitted that "the punishment of the Blazing Fire" remains upon its literal meaning. The interrogation is for denial, and amazement is understood from the context, or it is for amazement, and denial is understood from the context.

The waw (in wa-law) is circumstantial (haliyyah). The meaning is: Will they follow them even while Satan is inviting them—that is, in the state where Satan is inviting them—to the punishment? It is also permitted that the waw is conjunctive, linked to an omitted clause, meaning: Would they follow them if Satan were not inviting them to the punishment? And even if he were inviting them to it? These are two famous opinions regarding the waw prefixed to "even if" (law) when used in a conjunctive/concessive sense (wasliyyah) and the like. Likewise, regarding its need for a response (jawab), there are two opinions: one asserting the need, and another denying it due to its shedding the meaning of a condition. Those who held the first opinion estimate it here as "they would not follow them," and this is unobjectionable under the premise that the waw is conjunctive. As for the premise that it is circumstantial, some have claimed it is not feasible, but there is consideration in that. The discussion on the likes of this noble verse has already passed, so remember it.