This booklet was written
by Ahmed Cevdet Paţa (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh), who rendered a great service
to Islam by putting the rules of Qur’ân al-kerîm into a code of law in his
valuable book Majalla. In addition, he wrote The Ottoman History in twelve volumes, the
most dependable book in its field, and the famous Qisâs-i
Anbiyâ’ (The
History of Prophets). He was born in Lofja in 1238 (
This ’alâm, that is,
everything, was nonexistent. Allâhu ta’âlâ created existence out of nothing. He
wished to enrich this world with human beings until the end of the world.
Creating Âdam (’alaihi ’s-salâm) out of soil, He ornamented the world with his
children. To show people the things necessary for them in this world and the
next, He honoured some of them by making them prophets (’alaihimu ’s-salâm). He
distinguished them from other people by giving them high ranks. He conveyed His
commands to prophets through an angel named Jabrâ’îl (Jibrîl, Gabriel). And
they conveyed these commands to their ummas exactly as Jabrâ’îl (’alaihi
’s-salâm) brought them to them. The first prophet was Âdam (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
and the last one was our master Muhammed Mustafâ (’alaihi ’s-salâtu wa
’s-salâm). Many prophets came between these two. Only Allâhu ta’âlâ knows their
number. The following are the ones whose names are known:
Âdam, Shîs (or Shît), Idrîs, Nuh (Noah), Hűd, Sâlih, Ibrâhîm, Ismâ’îl, Is’hâq (Isaac), Ya’qűb (Jacob), Yűsuf (Joseph), Eyyűb, Lűt, Shu’aib, Műsâ (Moses), Hârűn (Aaron), Dâwűd (David), Sulaimân, Yűnus (Jonah), Ilyâs (Elijah), Alyasa’, Dhu’l-kifl, Zakariyyâ (Zechariah), Yahyâ (John), ’Îsâ (Jesus), Muhammad Mustafâ (’alaihimu ’s-salâtu wa ’s-salâm). Twenty-five of these Prophets, with the exception of Shîs (’alaihis-salâm), are named in Qur’ân al-kerîm. The names of ’Uzair, Luqmân and Dhu'l-
qarnain are also mentioned in
Qur’ân al-kerîm. Some ’ulâmâ’ of the Ahl as-Sunna said that these three, and
Tubba’ and Hidir, were prophets, while some said they were Awliyâ’.
Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) is
Habîb-Allah (Allah’s Most Beloved). Ibrâhîm (’alaihi ’s-salâm) is
Khalîl-Allah (the Beloved of Allah). Műsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) is Kalîm-Allah (one with whom
Allah spoke). ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) is Rűh-Allah (one whom Allah created
without a father). Âdam (’alaihi ’s-salâm) is Safî-Allah (one whose fault was
forgiven by Allah). Nűh (’alaihi ’s-salâm) is Najî-Allah (one whom Allah
saved from danger). These six prophets are superior to other prophets. They are
called Ulu ’l-’azm. The most superior of all is Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm).
Allâhu ta’âlâ sent one
hundred suhuf (pl. of sahîfa, booklet) and four books down to the earth. All of
them were brought by Jabrâ’îl (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Ten suhuf descended to Âdam
(’alaihi ’s-salâm), fifty suhuf to Shîs (’alaihi ’s-salâm), thirty suhuf to
Idrîs (’alaihi ’s-salâm), and ten suhuf to Ibrâhîm (’alaihi ’s-salâm). [Sahîfa,
(in this context), means ‘a small book’, ‘a booklet’. It does not mean ‘one
face of a sheet of paper’, which we know]. Of the four books, the Tawrât
esh-sherîf [Torah]
was sent to Műsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm), the Zabűr esh-sherîf [the original Psalms] to
Dâwűd (’alaihi ’s-salâm), the Injîl esh-sherîf [latin ‘Evangelium’] to
’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and Qur’ân al-kerîm to the Last Prophet,
Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm).
During the time of Nűh
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) the Flood took place and water covered the entire world. All
people and animals on the earth were drowned. But the Believers who were on
board with him were rescued. Nűh (’alaihi ’s-salâm), when boarding the ship,
had taken one pair of every kind of animal, from which today’s animals
multiplied.
Nűh (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
had his three sons on board the ship: Sâm (Shem), Yâfas (Japheth) and Hâm
(Ham). People on the earth today are their descendants. For this reason, he is
called the Second Father.
Ibrâhîm (’alaihi
’s-salâm) was Ismâil’s and Is’hâq’s (alaihima ’s-salâm) father. Is’hâq (’alaihi
’s-salâm) was Ya’qűb’s father. Ya’qűb (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was Yűsuf’s (’alaihi
’s-salâm) father. Ya’qűb (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was called “Isrâ’îl.” For this
reason, his sons and grandsons were called “Banî Isrâ’îl” (the Children of
Isrâ’îl). Banî Isrâ’îl increased in number and many of them became prophets.
Műsâ, Hârűn, Dâwűd, Sulaimân, Zakariyyâ,
Yahyâ and ’Îsâ (alaihimu
’s-salâm) are among them. Sulaimân (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was the son of Dâwűd
(’alaihi ’s-salâm). Yahyâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was the son of Zakariyyâ (’alaihi
’s-salâm). Hârűn (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was Műsâ’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) brother. The
Arabs are the descendants of Ismâ’îl (’alaihi ’s-salâm), and Muhammad (’alaihi
’s-salâm) was an Arab.
Hűd (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
was sent to the ’Âd tribe, Sâlih (’alaihi ’s-salâm) to the Thaműd tribe, and
Műsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was sent to Banî Isrâ’îl. Also Hârűn, Dâwűd, Sulaimân,
Zakariyyâ and Yahyâ (’alaihimu ’s-salâm) were sent to Banî Isrâ’îl. Yet none of
them brought a new religion; they invited Banî Isrâ’îl to Műsâ’s (’alaihi
’s-salâm) religion. Though the Zabűr was sent down to Dâwűd (’alaihi ’s-salâm),
it did not have commandments, rules or ’ibâdât. It was full of sermons and
advice. Therefore, it did not abrogate or invalidate the Torah but emphasized
it, and this is why the religion of Műsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) lasted up to the
time of ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm). When ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) came, his
religion abrogated that of Műsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm); that is, the Torah became
invalid. So it was no longer permissible to follow Műsâ’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
religion. From then on it was necessary to follow ’Îsâ’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
religion until Muhammad’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) dispensation. However, the
majority of Banî Isrâ’îl did not believe ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and persisted
in following the Torah. Thus Jews and Nasârâ separated. Those who believed ’Îsâ
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) were called Nasârâ, who are today’s Christians. Those who disbelieved
’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and remained in disbelief and heresy were called Yahűd (Jews). Jews still claim
that they follow Műsâ’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) religion and read the Torah and the
Zabűr; the Nasârâ claim that they follow ’Îsâ’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) religion and
read the Injîl. However, our master, Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâtu wa ’s-salâm),
the master of both worlds and the prophet of all human beings and genies, was
sent as the prophet for all ’âlams (worlds of beings), and his religion, Islam,
invalidated all previous religions. Since this religion will remain valid till
the end of the world, it is not permissible in any part of the world to be in
any religion other than his religion. No prophet will succeed him. We are,
thanks to Allâhu ta’âlâ, his Umma. Our religion is Islam.
Our Prophet, Muhammad
(’alaihi ’s-salâm), was born in Mekka on the Monday morning of Rabî’ al-awwal
12, which coincided with April 20, 571 (mîlâdî). He passed away in Medina in
the 11th year of the Hegira (m. 632). At the age 40, the angel
called Jabrâ’il (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
revealed to him his prophethood. He emigrated (hijra) from Mekka to Medina in
622; his arrival at the Kubâ village near Medina on Monday, September 20, marks
the beginning of the Muslims’ Hijrî Shamsî (solar) calendar,[1] while Muharram 1 of the
same year marks the beginning of the Qamarî (lunar) calendar.
We believe in all
prophets. All of them were prophets sent by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Yet, when Qur’ân
al-kerîm descended, all other religions were abrogated. Therefore, it is not
permissible to follow any of them. Christians also believe in all past
prophets, yet since they do not believe in the fact that Muhammad (’alaihi
’s-salâm) is the prophet for all mankind, they remain in disbelief and diverge
from the truth. As for Jews, since they do not believe ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
either, they remain twice as far from Islam.
Since Jews and Christians
believe that their present interpolated books are the same today as they were
when they were sent down from heaven, they are called ahl al-kitâb (disbelievers with
heavenly books). It is permissible [but makrűh] to eat the animals they
slaughter [if they mention the name of Allâhu ta’âlâ as they slaughter them]
and to marry their daughters with nikâh.[2] Polytheists (mushriks)
and apostates (murtads) who do not believe in any prophet or book are called
“disbelievers without a heavenly book.” Mulhids, too, are said to be in
the same group. It is not permissible to marry their daughters or to eat the
animals they slaughter.
’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) chose twelve of his companions to disseminate his religion after him; each of them was called a hawârî [apostle, le Apôrte, Apostel]. They were Sham’űn [Simon], Peter, [Petros], Johanna [Johannes], the elder Ya’qűb, Andreas [Andrew, Peter’s brother], Philippus, Thomas, Bartholomew [Bartholomaus], Matiyyâ [Matthew], the younger Ya’qűb, Barnabas, Yahűdâ [Judas] and Thaddaeus [Jakobi]. Yahűdâ became an apostate and Matyas [Matthias] took his
---------------------------------
[1] The Persian Shamsî year begins six months before this, that is, on the twentieth of March, which is the day of the Magian festival.
[2] It is not permissible for Muslim girls to marry them. If a girl intends to marry a disbeliever, she will have slighted Allâhu ta’âlâ’s religion. Those who slight Islam become proselytes. Therefore, such a marriage will be one between two disbelievers.
place. Petros was the
chief of the apostles. These twelve believers, after ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
had ascended to heaven at the age of thirty-three, propagated his religion. Yet
the true teachings of the religion sent by Allâhu ta’âlâ could hold on only for
eighty years. Later, Paul’s fibbed doctrines spread out everywhere. Paul was a
Jew and did not believe in ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Yet, pretending to be a
believer of ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and introducing himself as a religious
scholar, he said that ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was the son of Allah. He fibbed
some other things and said that wine and pork were halâl. He turned Nasârâ’s
qibla from the Ka’ba to the East where the sun rises. He said that Allâhu
ta’âlâ’s Person (Dhât) was one and His Attributes were three. These attributes
were called uqnűm (hypostases). The words of this Jewish hypocrite were
inserted into the earliest four books of the Bible (the Gospels), especially
into Luke’s book, and the Nasârâ parted into groups. Seventy-two conflicting
sects and books appeared. In the course of time, most of these sects were
forgotten and now they have only three major sects left.
[’Abdullah ibn ’Abdullah
at-Tarjumân, who had been a priest on Majorca, one of the Spanish Balearic
Islands, and who changed his name after embracing Islam in Tunisia, writes:
“The four Gospels were
written by Matthew, Luke, Mark and John [Johanna]. They were the first books to
defile the Injîl. Matthew, a Palestinian, had seen ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) only
in the year of his ascent to heaven. Eight years later he wrote the first
gospel in which he narrated the extraordinary events witnessed in Palestine
when ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was born and how his mother Hadrat Mariam took him
to Egypt when the Jewish King Herod wanted to kill her child. Hadrat Mariam
passed away six years after her son had ascended to heaven and was buried in
Jerusalem. Luke, who was from Antioch (Antakya), never saw ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm).
He was converted to the religion of ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) by the hypocrite
Paul long after ’Îsâ’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) ascent to heaven. After being imbued
with the poisonous ideas of Paul, he wrote his gospel, changing Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
book (the Injîl) altogether. Mark, too, accepted the religion of ’Îsâ (’alaihi
’s-salâm) after the Ascension and wrote in Rome what he had heard from Petros
under the name of the Injîl. John was the son of ’Îsâ’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
aunt. He had seen ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) several times. In these four Gospels
there are many
incongruous passages.”[1]
In the two books Diyâ’ al-qulűb
and Shams
al-haqîqa by
Is’hâk Efendi of Harput, who died in 1309 (
A Gospel written by
Barnabas, who wrote precisely what he saw and heard from ’Îsâ (’alaihi
’s-salâm), was found and published in English in Pakistan in 1973. It is
written in Qâműs al-a’lâm: “Barnabas was one of the earliest apostles. He was a son
of Mark’s uncle. He was a Cypriot. He believed in ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) soon
after Paul came forward, with whom he travelled to Anatolia and Greece. He was
martyred in Cyprus in the year 63. He wrote a Gospel and some other booklets.
He is memorialized on the eleventh of June by Christians.”
Christian religious
officials are called clergymen. The highest ranking Orthodox clergyman is the
Patriarch. Clergymen of an intermediate grade are called pastors. Those who read
the Bible are called qissîs (gospellers). Above the qissîs are uskufs
(presbyters), who act as muftîs. Uskufs of higher grades are bishops, above
whom are archbishops or metropolitans, who act as qâdîs (judges). Those who
conduct the ritual prayers in church are called jâselîk (cleric), below whom
are the curés or the shammâs (deacons), and those who serve in church are
called eremites (hermits) or shamâmisa (coenobites), who also act as muezzins.
Those who have devoted themselves to worship are called monks. Head of
Catholics is the Pope (father of fathers) in Rome. His advisory prelates are
called cardinals.
All these men of religious authority of the past forgot the Oneness of Allâhu ta’âlâ. They invented the Trinity. After some time, in the era of the Roman Emperor Claudius II (215-271), Yűnus Shammâs, the Patriarch of Antioch, declared the Oneness
---------------------------------
[1] Tuhfat al-arîb fi
’r-raddi ’alâ ahli ’s-salîb,
by ’Abdullah ibn ’Abdullah at-Tarjumân.
He wrote this Arabic work in 823 (
[2] A photostatic reproduction of the last three books was produced by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in 1986.
of Allâhu ta’âlâ. He
brought many people round to the right course. Yet later priests succeeding him
relapsed to worshipping three gods. Constantine the Great (274-337) introduced
idolatry into the religion of ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm). In 325, he convened 318
priests in a spiritual council in Nicea (Iznik) and made up a new Christian
religion. In this council, a presbyter named Arius said that Allâhu ta’âlâ is
one and ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) is His creature. Yet, Alexandrius, chief of the
council and the then Patriarch of Alexandria, dismissed him from the church.
Constantine the Great declared that Arius was a disbeliever and established the
principles of the Malakâiyya (Melchite) sect; this fact is written in the book Al-milal wa
’n-nihal and
in a history book by Jirjis Ibn al-’Amîd, a Byzantine Greek historian who lived
through 601-
The sect accepted in the
Kadýköy council and ratified by King
Mercianus is called
Malakâiya (Melchite). It is similar to the sect accepted in the first
ecumenical council held in Nicea. Their chief is the Patriarch of Antioch. They
term the attributes Knowledge and Life as “Kalima” (Word) and “Rűh al-quds”
(the Holy Ghost), respectively, which are called ‘uqnűm’ when they unite with man.
They have three gods: ‘Father’, the uqnűm of existence, is one of them; Jesus
is the ‘Son’; Mary (Mariam) is a goddess. They call ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) Jesus Christ.
The seventy-two Christian
sects are described in detail in the Arabic book Izhâr ul-haqq and in the Turkish book Diyâ’
ul-qulűb.[1]
All these sects were
loyal to the Pope in Rome until 446 [1054 A.D.]. All of them were called Catholic. In 1054, Michael
Cirolarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, broke away from the Pope and began to
administer the Eastern churches independently. These churches are called Orthodox. They follow the
Ya’qűbiyya sect. In 923 (
As it is seen, most Christians are baser than Jews, and they will be punished more severely in the Hereafter because they both disbelieve Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and trespass against the subject of Ulűhiyya (Divinity); they believe in the Trinity and worship ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and his mother Hadrat Mariam and divinize them; they also eat maita flesh.[2] As for
---------------------------------
[1] Izhâr al-haqq
was
printed in Arabic in Istanbul in 1280 (
[2] Islam prescribes who to kill an edible animal. When it is not killed in the prescibed manner, its flesh becomes maita, i.e. not edible.
Jews, they reject two
prophets; but they know that Allâhu ta’âlâ is one, and they do not eat maita
flesh. Nevertheless, Jews are more hostile towards Islam. Although a few Jews
became polytheists like Christians by saying, “’Uzair (Ezra) was Allah’s son,”
they are all called ahl al-kitâb. The Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants read
different versions of the Bible and claim that they follow ’Îsâ (’alaihi
’s-salâm). However, each sect has many conflicting principles on creed and
practice. All of them are called Nasârâ, Christians or ahl al-kitâb. Jews think
of themselves as being in Műsâ’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) religion.[1]
When our Prophet (’alaihi
’s-salâtu wa sallam) honoured the Hereafter with his presence in the eleventh
year of the Hegira, Abű Bakr as-Siddîq (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) became the Khalîfa,
who, 13 years after the Hegira, passed away at the age of sixty-three. After
him, ’Umar al-Fârűq (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) became the Khalîfa. He was martyred at
the age of sixty-three, in 23 of the Hegira. After him, ’Uthmân Dhu’n-Nűrain
(radiy-Allâhu ’anh) became the Khalîfa. He was martyred at the age of
eighty-two, in the year 35 after the Hegira. Then, ’Alî (radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anh) became the Khalîfa. He was martyred in
In the time of Abű Bekr ‘radiy-allâhu anh’ Muslims went out of the Arabian Peninsula. They suppressed the tumults that had broken out in the peninsula, and struggled for the suppression of proselytes. After our Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) honoured the Hereafter with his presence, rebellions broke out on the Arabian Peninsula. Abű Bakr (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) quelled the rebellions and struggled to correct the apostates during his caliphate and re-established Muslim unity as had been the case
---------------------------------
[1] In 1954, the population of the world was 2.444 billion. There were 322 million Muslims, 800 million Christians (128 million the Orthodox, 470 million Catholics and 202 million Protestants), 11 million Jews, and 1.311 billion polytheists and unbelievers, who did not believe in any heavenly book or any prophet
during the
’Asr-as-Sa’âda. ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), when he became the Khalîfa,
delivered a speech:
“O Companions of the
Messenger! ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’. Arabia can supply only the
barley for your horses. Yet, Allâhu ta’âlâ has promised His Beloved (the
Prophet) that He would give Muhammad’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) Umma lands and homes
in all parts of the world. Where are the soldiers to conquer those countries
promised and to attain booties in this world and honours of ghâzî and martyr in
the Hereafter? Where are the ghâzîs who will sacrifice their lives and heads
and leave their homes to rescue the human slaves of Allâhu ta’âlâ from the paws
of the cruel for the sake of Islam?”. With these words, he encouraged the
Sahâbat al-kirâm (’alaihimu ’r-ridwân) to go for jihâd and ghazâ. It was this
speech of ’Umar’s (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) that prompted the rapid enlargement of
Islamic countries on three continents and the purification of millions of
people from disbelief. Upon this speech, the Sahâbat al-kirâm (’alaihimu
’r-ridwân) took a unanimous oath to make jihâd and to fight for Islam until
death. With armed forces organized as the Khalîfa had commanded, Muslims left
their homes and went out of Arabia and settled everywhere. Many of them did not
come back and struggled till death where they had gone. Thus many countries
were conquered in a short time. In those days, there were two great empires:
the Byzantine and the Persian. Muslims overcame both. Especially, the Persian
Empire collapsed altogether, and all her lands came into Muslims’ possession.
Inhabitants of these countries, being blessed with the honour of becoming
Muslims, attained peace in this world and endless bliss in the Hereafter.
During the times of ’Uthmân and ’Alî (radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ), too, Muslims
dedicated themselves to ghazâ. Nonetheless, during the caliphate of ’Uthmân
(radiy-Allâhu ’anh) some people rose against the Khalîfa and martyred him.
During the time of ’Alî (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) the Khârijî tumults arose.
Differences among the Muslims commenced. And, since the greatest source of
conquest and victory was unanimous unity, during their caliphates not so much
land was conquered as had been the case during the time of ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu
’anh).
The era of al-Khulafâ
ar-râshidîn lasted thirty years. These thirty years, like the time of the
Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm), passed in prosperity. After them, many bid’as and
wrong paths appeared among Muslims and many people dissented from the right
way.
Only those who believed
and adapted themselves to the Sharî’a exactly as the Sahâbat al-kirâm
(radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în) had done were saved. Their way is that of Ahl as-Sunnat
wa’l-Jamâ’a. This is the only correct way. The way which our Prophet (’alaihi
’s-salâm) and his companions followed was the way which is shown by the
scholars of the Ahl as-Sunna (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în). The wrong
ways were forgotten in the course of time, and most Muslim countries today
follow this correct way. Of those which were not compatible with the Ahl
as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a, there is only the Shî’ite group left. The Shî’ites
claim, “The Caliphate was ’Alî’s (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) right and Abu Bakr and
’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ anhumâ) deprived him of his right by force,” and
they slander most of the Sahâbat al-kirâm. [Today, those who are called Muslims
and are known as the al-Ummat al-Muhammadiyya are almost entirely composed of
the Ahl as-Sunna, the Shî’ites and the Wahhâbîs].[1]
The Ahl as-Sunna, with
respect to fiqh (actions, ’ibâdât), consists of four Madhhabs. The first one,
the Hanafî Madhhab, was founded by al-Imâm al-a’zam Abu Hanîfa Nu’mân ibn
Thâbit (rahmatullâhi ’aleyh). ‘Hanîf’ means ‘a person who believes correctly,
who clings to Islam.’ ‘Abu Hanîfa’ means ‘the father of true Muslims.’ Al-Imâm
al-a’zam did not have a daughter named ‘Hanîfa.’ The second of the four
Madhhabs of the Ahl as-Sunna is the Mâlikî Madhhab of Imâm Mâlik ibn Anas
(rahmatullâhi ’aleyh). The third one is the Shâfi’î Madhhab of Imâm Muhammed ibn
Idrîs ash-Shâfi’î (rahmatullâhi ’aleyh). Hadrat Shâfî’, a Sahâbî, was the
grandfather of the Imâm’s grandfather. That was why he and his Madhhab were
called Shâfi’î. The fourth one is the Hanbalî Madhhab of Ahmad ibn Hanbal
(rahmatullâhi ’aleyh). [As is written in the preface of Radd
al-mukhtâr by
Ibn ’Âbidîn, these four imâms were born in the hijrî years 80, 90, 150 (767
mîlâdî) and 164 and passed away in 150, 179, 204 and 241, respectively.]
With respect to i’tiqâd
(beliefs), these four Madhhabs are not different from one another. All of them
belong to the Ahl as-Sunna and their beliefs and the basis of their religion
are the same. These four Imâms of the Muslims were great mujtahids recognized
and believed by everybody. Yet they disagreed with
---------------------------------
[1] Those zindîqs who are called Ahmadiyya (Qâdiyânîs) and Bahâ’îs have no connection with Islam. Both groups are disbelievers.
one another in some small
affairs with respect to actions (the Sharî’a).
Because Allâhu ta’âlâ and
His Prophet (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa-salam) pitied Muslims, it was not
declared clearly in Qur’ân al-kerîm and Hadîth ash-sherîf how some actions
should be done.[1] These actions had to be
done by comparing them to those declared clearly. Among religious scholars,
those who are capable of understanding how such actions are to be done after
comparing them were called mujtahid. It was wâjib, that is, it was commanded in Qur’ân
al-kerîm and Hadîth ash-sherîf for a mujtahid to strive with his utmost energy
to find out how an action is to be done and, for him and for those who follow
him, to perform it in accordance with his deduction or choice (ijtihâd), which, he thought, was
most probably the right solution. A mujtahid’s mistake in exploring the way of
doing an action will not be regarded as a sin, and he will be rewarded in the
Hereafter for his efforts, for man is commanded to work as much as he can. If
he erred, he will be given one reward for his efforts. If he discovered what
was correct, he will be rewarded ten times as much. All the Sahâbat al-kirâm
(radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în) were great scholars, that is, mujtahids.
Among those who lived immediately after them, there were many great scholars
capable of ijtihâd, and each of them was followed by very many people. With the
passage of time, most of them were forgotten, and among the Ahl as-Sunna, only
the four Madhhabs survived. Afterwards, lest someone might come forth and
pretend to be a mujtahid and make up a heretical group, the Ahl as-Sunna did
not follow any Madhhab other than these four. Millions of people among the Ahl
as-Sunna followed one of these four Madhhabs. Since the beliefs of these four
Madhhabs are the same, they do not consider one another wrong, nor do they
regard one another as holders of bid’at or heretics. After saying that the
right way is the way of these four Madhhabs, a Muslim thinks that his own
Madhhab is more likely to be correct. Since Islam does not reveal clearly how
the actions that are to be determined through ijtihâd should be done, it is
possible for one’s own Madhhab to be wrong and the remaining three
---------------------------------
[1] If they had been declared clearly, it would have been fard or sunna
to do them exactly as they were declared. Those who would not do the fard would
be sinful and those who would slight them would become non-Muslims; life would
be very difficult for Muslims
Madhhabs to be right, and
it is better for everyone to say, “The Madhhab I follow is right, but it may be
wrong as well; the other three Madhhabs are wrong, but they may be right as
well.” Thus, if there is no kharâj (compelling necessity), it is not
permissible to mix the four Madhhabs with one another by doing one thing
according to one Madhhab and another thing according to another. A person has
to adapt himself in every respect to the Madhhab he follows by learning its teachings
when there is no haraj.[1]
Most scholars said that
the Hanafî Madhhab was closer to being right. Therefore, this Madhhab settled
in most Muslim countries. Almost all Muslims in Turkistan, India and Anatolia
are Hanafîs. Western Africa is wholely Mâlikî. There are Mâlikîs in some
coastal regions of India. Among the Kurds and in Egypt, Arabia and Daghistan,
Shafi’îs are numerous. Hanbalîs are few; at one time there were many in
Damascus and Baghdad.
The Al-adillat
ash-Shar’iyya (documents, sources of Islam) consists of four parts: Qur’ân al-kerîm,
al-Hadîth ash-sherîf, ijmâ’ al-Umma and qiyâs al-fuqahâ’.
When mujtahids could not
see in Qur’ân al-kerîm clearly how an action is to be done, they would resort
to Hadîth ash-sherîf. If they could not find it clearly in Hadîth ash-sherîf,
either, they would declare that the action should be done in accordance with
the ijmâ’ on that action, if there had been any.[2]
If the way of doing an
action could not be found through the ijmâ’, either, then it would be necessary
to follow the qiyâs of mujtahids. Imâm Mâlik (rahmatullâhi ’aleyh) said that,
besides
---------------------------------
[1]
Yet, in case of
haraj
(utter difficulty, impossibility of doing an action in accordance with his own
Madhhab), it is permissible for him to follow another Madhhab in this matter. And this brings about some
conditions. He has to observe the conditions of the latter Madhhab concerning
the affair when making use of this option. It is written in Ibni Âbidîn, in the
chapter headlined
Nikâh-i-rij’î,
that the scholars of Hanafî Madhhab have issued a fatwâ permitting to
imitate Mâlikî Madhhab in such cases.
[2] Ijmâ’ means ‘unanimity, consensus; all of the Sahâbat al-kirâm’s commenting on or doing an action in the same manner.’ The ijmâ’ of the Tâbi’űn, who succeeded the Sahâbat al-kirâm, also is a document. What the people who succeeded them did or said is not ijmâ’, especially if they are today’s people or religion reformers or religiously ignorant people.
these four documents, the
unanimity of the inhabitants of al-Madînat al-munawwara of that time was a
document. He said, “Their tradition [unanimity] was handed down from their
fathers, from their grandfathers, and originally from Rasűlullah (sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam).” He said that this document was more dependable than qiyâs.
Yet, the imâms of the other there Madhhabs did not consider the inhabitants of
Medina a source for documentation.
There were two methods for
ijtihâd. One
was the method of the ’ulamâ’ of Iraq, called the way of ra’y (choice) or the way of qiyâs (comparison): if it was
not declared clearly in Qur’ân al-kerîm or Hadîth ash-sherîf how to do an
action, another action that was clearly expressed in Qur’ân al-kerîm or Hadîth
ash-sherîf and which was similar to the action in question would be searched
for. When it was found, the action in question would be compared to it and done
in a similar way. After the Sahâbat al-kirâm, the leader of the mujtahids of
this way was Imâm al-a’zam Abu Hanîfa (rahmatullâhi ’aleyh).
The second way was the
way of the ’ulamâ’ of Hidjâz, called the way of riwâya (tradition). They
considered the traditions of the inhabitants of al-Madînat al-munawwara
superior to qiyâs. The greatest of the mujtahids of this way was Imâm Mâlik
(rahmatullâhi ’aleyh), who lived in al-Madînat al-munawwara. Al-Imâm
ash-Shâfi’î and Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihimâ) attended
his sohbats. Al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î, after learning the way of Imâm Mâlik, went to
Baghdad and learned the way of al-Imâm al-a’zam (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh)
from his disciples and united these two methods. He established a new approach
for ijtihâd. Becasue he was a very eloquent and literary man, he understood the
context of âyats and hadîths and decided on each action in accordance with an
alternative he found more emphatic. When he could not find an alternative
strong enough, he himself employed ijtihâd according to the way of qiyâs. Ahmad
ibn Hanbal (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh), too, went to Baghdad after learning
the way of Imâm Mâlik (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh). There, he acquired a method
of qiyâs from the disciples of al-Imâm al-a’zam (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh).
Yet, because he had memorized a great many hadîths, he employed ijtihâd first
by examining the way whereby hadîths corroborated one another. Thus, he
disagreed with the other three Madhhabs on many points concerning the rules of
the Sharî’a.
The case of these four
Madhhabs is similar to that of the
inhabitants of a town, the notables of which,
when they encounter a new problem they cannot find in the law, assemble
together and solve it by comparing it to a conformable paragraph of the law.
Sometimes they cannot come to a mutual agreement. Some of them say that the
purpose of the State is maintenance of towns for the comfort of the people. By
reasoning and observing, they solve a problem by using the analogy between that
case and a similar case which is defined directly in an article of the law.
This procedure is like the Hanafî Madhhab. Others observe the behaviour of the
officials coming from the capital and imitate them in this respect. They say
that their behavior indicates the intention of the State. This method is like
the Mâlikî Madhhab. Some others find out the way of doing an affair by studying
the expressions and context of the law. They are similar to the Shâfi’î
Madhhab. And some decide the way of doing an affair correctly by gathering the
other articles of the law and comparing them with one another. They are like
the Hanbalî Madhhab. Thus, each of the notables of the town finds a solution
and says that his solution is correct and compatible with the law. But what the
law approves of is only one of the four, and the other three are wrong. Yet
their disagreement with the law is not out of their intention to oppose the
law; they strive to carry out the orders of the State. Therefore, none of them
is to be regarded guilty. They are likely to be appreciated for striving hard.
But those who find out what is right will be appreciated more, and they will be
rewarded. The case of the four Madhhabs is of this sort. The way Allâhu ta’âlâ
likes is certainly only one of them. In an affair on which the four Madhhabs
disagree with one another, one of them must be right and the other three wrong.
But, since each imâm al-madhhab endeavoured to find out the right way, those
who were wrong will be forgiven. They will even be rewarded, because our
Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) said, “There is no punishment for my Umma due
to mistakes or forgetfulness.” These differences among them only concern some
insignificant affairs. Since there was complete agreement among them concerning
beliefs and on most of the ’ibâdât, that is, the rules that are openly stated
in Qur’ân al-kerîm and Hadîth ash-sherîf, they did not criticize one another.
[Question: “Wahhâbîs and those who
read their books say. ‘The Madhhabs appeared in the second century of the
Hegira. To which Madhhab did the Sahâba and the Tâbi’űn belong?’ ”
Answer: An ‘imâm
al-madhhab’ was
a great scholar who
collected religious
knowledge that he acquired from the Sahâba-t-al-kirâm and which was clearly
stated in Qur’ân al-kerîm and Hadîth ash-sherîf, and committed it to books. As
for the teachings that were not declared clearly, he would examine them by
comparing them to the ones declared clearly. “There were also many other imâms
each having his own Madhhab during the time of the well-known four imâms. But
those who followed them decreased in number over the centuries, and, as a
result, none are left today.”[1] Each Sahabî was a
mujtahîd, a profound ’âlim, and an imâm al-madhhab. Each had his own Madhhab
and was more exalted and learned than the four a’immat al-madhâhib. Their
Madhhabs could have been more correct and superior. Yet, because they did not
write books, their Madhhabs were forgotten. It soon became no longer possible to follow any Madhhab other than the
four. Saying, “To which Madhhab did the Sahâba belong?” is like saying, “To
which squadron does the colonel belong?” or, “To which class of the school does
the physics master belong?”]
It is written in many
books that four hundred years after the Hegira there were no longer any
scholars capable of performing mutlaq (absolute) ijtihâd. The hadîth ash-sherîf
on the 318th page of Al-hadîqa states that false, heretical men of religious post
will increase in number. For this reason, every Sunnî Muslim today has to
follow (taqlîd) one of the known four Madhhabs. That is, he has to read
and adopt the ’ilm al-hâl books of one of these four Madhhabs and have îmân
and do all his actions in accordance with these books. Thus, he will become a
member of one of these Madhhabs. A person who does not follow one of them
cannot be a Sunnî but a lâ-madhhabî person, who either belongs to one of the
seventy-two heretical groups or has become a non-Muslim.[2]
The author of the book Mîzân-ul kubrâ
(rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ ’aleyh) writes in its preface: “All the forgotten Madhhabs and the
present four are sahîh and valid. None of them is superior to any other,
because they all depend on the same sources of Islam. Each Madhhab has those
things which are easy to do (rukhsa) as
---------------------------------
[1]
Al-hadîqa, p. 318
[2] This fact is written in Bahr, Hindiyya, in the section on “Zabâyih” of at-Tahtâwî and in the section on “Bâghîs” of Radd al-mukhtâr. Furthermore, it is written on page 52 of Al-basâ’ir that the tafsîr by Ahmad Sâwî states that the same is written in the Sűrat al-Kahf.
well as difficult ones (’azîma). If a person, though he
can do the ’azîma, tries to do the rukhsa instead, he will have made a game of
Islam. He who has an excuse [unable to do the ’azîma] may do the rukhsa. His
doing the rukhsa deserves as much thawâb as would be the case if he had done
the ’azîma. It is wâjib for an able person to do the ’azîma instead of the
rukhsa of his own Madhhab. Furthermore, if some action which has an easy way
only in his own Madhhab has also a difficult way in another Madhhab, it will be
wâjib for him to do the latter. One should very much avoid disliking the words
of any of the a’immat al-madhâhib or hold one’s own opinion superior to theirs.
Others’ knowledge and comprehension are next to nothing when compared with
those of mujtahids.”[1] Since it is not
permissible for a person who has no excuse to act in accordance with the rukhsa
of his own Madhhab, it is understood that it is never permissible to search for
the rukhsas of other Madhhabs, which is called the talfîq of Madhhabs.
The author of the book Durr-ul-mukhtâr
(rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ ’aleyh) says in its preface and also it is said in Radd-ul-mukhtâr,
an
annotation book to Durr-ul-mukhtâr, “It is not sahîh to look for the rukhsas of
the Madhhabs and to do an ’ibâda in accordance with them. For example, if the
skin of a Shâfi’’î with an ablution bleeds, his ablution does not break, while
bleeding breaks the ablution of a Hanafî; on the other hand, a Shâfi’î’s
ablution breaks if a nâ-mahram woman’s skin touches his skin, though it does
not break according to the Hanafî Madhhab. Therefore, if a person’s skin bleeds
and touches a nâ-mahram woman’s skin after he has made an ablution, the salât
he performs with such an ablution is not sahîh. Likewise, it is bâtil (invalid,
wrong) to follow another Madhhab while doing something according to a Madhhab.
For example, if a dog touches a Shâfi’î who, according to his Madhhab, rubs
lightly his wet hands on a small area of the hairy part of his own head when
performing an ablution, it will not be sahîh for him to perform salât [without
washing the surface the dog has touched] by also following the Mâlikî Madhhab.
The salât of a person whom a dog has touched will not be sahîh according to the
Shâfi’î Madhhab. However, according to the Mâlikî Madhhab, a dog is not
religiously impure (najs), but one has to rub his wet hands on the entire hairy
part of his head (when making ablution). Similarly,
---------------------------------
[1] Al-mîzân al-kubrâ, preface
divorce given under
duress is sahîh in the Hanafî Madhhab, but it is not sahîh in the other three
Madhhabs. Therefore, it is not permissible for this person to follow the
Shâfi’î Madhhab and go on being married with the woman whom he has divorced
while remaining married at the same time to her sister by following the Hanafî
Madhhab. It is not sahîh, according to the unanimity of the ’ulamâ’ to make talfiq in doing an act, that is,
to search for the rukhsas of the Madhhabs and to act in accordance with them.
It is not permissible to do something without following one of the four
Madhhabs.”[1] Furthermore, “It is
permissible in the Shâfi’î Madhhab to perform the early and late afternoon
prayers together and the night and evening prayers together when there is an
excuse, such as travelling and hard rain. It is not permissible in the Hanafî
Madhhab. It is harâm if a Hanafî, when he is travelling, performs the early
afternoon prayer in the time of the late afternoon prayer without any pressing
circumstance or difficulty to do so; it is never sahîh for him to perform the
late afternoon prayer in the time of the early afternoon prayer. But both cases
are sahîh in the Shâfi’î Madhhab. When there is a great difficulty (haraj,
mashaqqa) in doing something (e.g. an ’ibâda) according to one’s own Madhhab,
it is permissible for him to choose the easy way (rukhsa) of doing that thing
in his own Madhhab. If there is difficulty in doing the rukhsa, too, it will be
permissible to follow another Madhhab for that particular ’ibâda. But then he
will have to perform the fard and wâjib actions pertaining to that ’ibâda in
the second Madhhab.”[2] A person who imitates
another Madhhab when doing an act or ’ibâda does not go out of his Madhhab; he
has not changed his Madhhab. Only, while doing that act, he has to observe the
principles of the other Madhhab, too.
Ibn ’Abidîn (rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ ’aleyh) writes: “If a Hanafî who has performed an ablution without
formally intending to perform an ablution performs the early afternoon prayer
with this ablution, it will be permissible; if he becomes a Shâfi’î after the
arrival of the time for the late afternoon prayer and performs the late
afternoon prayer with this ablution, it will not be sahîh. He has to intend
formally to perform an ablution and perform an ablution again.[3]
---------------------------------
[1]
Durr al-mukhtâr, preface,
and Radd al-muhtâr, annotation to it.
[2]
ibid,
section on times of salât.
[3]
Radd al-muhtâr,
v. II. p.
“If a person changes his
Madhhab for worldly considerations without any religious necessity or without a
necessity pertaining to knowledge, he makes a game of Islam. He must be
punished. It is feared that he may die without îmân. Allâhu ta’âlâ declared: ‘Ask those who
know.’ For
this reason, it became wâjib to ask a mujtahid, that is, to follow a Madhhab.
Following a Madhhab is possible either by saying what one’s Madhhab is or,
without saying, by intending to be in it with one’s heart. To follow a Madhhab
means to read, learn and act according to the teachings of the imâm al-madhhab.
One cannot join a Madhhab by saying, ‘I am Hanafî,’ or ‘I am Shâfi’î,’ without
learning or knowing it. Such people should learn how to perform ’ibâdât from
religious masters and from ’ilm al-hâl books.[1]
“A person who despises
the Madhhabs and changes his Madhhab in order to choose the easy ways of doing
something [that is, who unites the Madhhabs and selects and gathers their
rukhsas] will not be accepted as a witness.”[2]
Ibn ’Âbidîn states in his
preface that Hârűn ar-Rashîd, the Khalîfa, said to Imâm Mâlik, “I want to
spread your books all over Muslim countries and order everybody to follow only
these books.” Imâm Mâlik replied, “O Khalîfa! Don’t do that! Scholars’
differing into Madhhabs is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion upon the Umma. Everyone
follows the Madhhab he likes. All the Madhhabs are correct.”
A ‘Mu’min’ or ‘Muslim’ or ‘Muslimân’ is one who believes and
accepts the Islamic teachings that were communicated to humanity through
Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) by Allâhu ta’âlâ and which have spread over Muslim
countries. These teachings were declared in Qur’ân al-kerîm and in thousands of
hadîths. The as-Sahâbat al-kirâm heard them from the Prophet (sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam). The Salaf as-sâlihîn, that is, the ’ulamâ’ of
Islam, who came after the Sahâbat al-kirâm in the second and third centuries,
wrote them in their books as they heard them directly or through those who had
heard them from the Sahâbat al-kirâm. Islamic scholars who succeeded them
interpreted the knowledge reported by the Salaf as-sâlihîn differently and
differed from one another; thus, seventy-three groups differing in the
teachings pertaining to beliefs came into being. Only one of these groups did
not follow their own thoughts and opinions or
---------------------------------
[1]
Radd ul-mukhtâr,
section on ta’zîr.
[2] ibid, section on witness.
change or add anything in
their interpretation. This group with correct credo is called the Ahl as-Sunna or Sunnî. The remaining seventy-two
groups who dissented as a result of wrong interpretation and explanation of
unclear ayâts and hadîths are called groups of bid’a (or dalâla, deviation, heresy) or the
lâ-madhhabî; they are Muslims, too, but they are in heresy.
Some people, instead of
deriving the knowledge of belief from the books of the Salaf as-sâlihîn
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ alaihim ajma’în’, interpret Qur’ân al-kerîm and Hadîth
ash-sherîf in accordance with only their own minds and opinions; thus their
creed deviates completely and they become disbelievers called mulhids. The mulhid thinks of himself as a
sincere Muslim and of the Umma of Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm). The munâfiq introduces himself as a
Muslim but is in another religion. The zindîq is an atheist and does
not believe in any religion, but pretends to be a Muslim in order to make
Muslims irreligious, atheistic. He strives to make reforms in Islam and to
annihilate Islam by changing and defiling it. He is hostile to Islam. They are
much more harmful than Jews and Christians. And so are freemasons.
The teachings that must
be believed in order to be a Muslim are not only the six tenets of îmân. To be
a Muslim, it is also obligatory to ‘believe’ that it is necessary to do the
well-known fards and to avoid and not to do the harâms. A person who
disbelieves the fact that it is one’s primary duty to do the fards and to avoid
the harâms loses his faith and becomes a murtadd (renegade, apostate,
proselyte). A person who believes it but does not do one or more of the fards
or commits one or more of the harâms is a Muslim, but he is a guilty, sinful
Muslim. Such a Muslim is called a fâsiq. Doing the fards and
abstaining from the harâms are called “performing ’ibâdâ.” A Muslim who tries
to do the ’ibâdât and who repents immediately when he has a fault is called sâlih.
Today, it is not
excusable for a person who lives in the free world not to know the six tenets
of îmân and the well-known fards and harâms. It is a grave sin not to learn
them. It is necessary to learn them briefly and to teach them to one’s
children. If one neglects to learn them as a result of flippancy, one becomes a
kâfir (disbeliever). Any non-Muslim who only says, “’Ashhadu an
lâ ilâha ill’Allâh wa ashhadu anna Muhammadan ’abduhu wa Rasűluh,” and knows and believes
its meaning becomes a Muslim immediately. Yet, later on he has to
learn gradually the six
tenets of îmân and the well-known fards and harâms for every Muslim, and
Muslims who know them should teach him. If he does not learn them he goes out
of Islam and becomes a murtadd. It is necessary to learn them from genuine ’ilm al-hâl books written by the Ahl
as-Sunna scholars.
The i’tiqâd or îmân of
the four true, correct Madhhabs is the same. There is no difference between
them in Islam. All of them hold the beliefs of the Ahl as-Sunna. Those who do
not believe in the beliefs of the Ahl as-Sunna are called the people of bid’a, i.e. the “lâ madhhabî.”
They
call themselves “members of the fifth madhhab.” These words of theirs are not
true. There is no such thing as a “fifth madhhab.” Today there is no way
other than learning the knowledge pertaining to religion from the ’ilm al-hâl
books of one of these four Madhhabs. Everyone chooses the Madhhab that is easy
for him to follow. He reads its books and learns it. He does everything
compatibly with it, follows it, and becomes a member of it (taqlîd). Because it is easy for a
person to learn what he hears and sees from his parents, a Muslim usually
belongs to the Madhhab of his parents. The Madhhabs being not one but four is a
facility for Muslims. It is permissible to leave one Madhhab and join another,
yet it will take years to study and learn the new one, and the work done for
learning the former one will be of no use and may even cause confusion while
doing many things. It is by no means permissible to leave one Madhhab because
one dislikes it, for Islamic scholars said that it will be disbelief (kufr) to
dislike the Salaf as-sâlihîn or to say that they were ignorant.
Recently some people like
Maudoodi of Pakistan and Sayyid Qutb and Rashîd Ridâ of Egypt have appeared.
They and those who have been deceived by reading their books say that the four
Madhhabs should be united and that Islam should be made easy by selecting and
gathering the rukhsas of the four Madhhabs. They defend this idea with their
short minds and deficient knowledge. A glance over their books will show at
once the fact that they know nothing about tafsîr, hadîth, usűl or fiqh, and
that they reveal their ignorance through their unsound logic and false
writings. Consider the following:
1) The ’ulamâ’ of the
four madhhabs say, “The mulfiq’s deduction is incorrect,” that is, an ’ibâda
performed by following more than one Madhhab at the same time will be bâtil
(invalid), not sahîh, when this performance is not sahîh in any one of the
Madhhabs. A person who does not obey the unanimity of the
’ulamâ’ of the four
Madhhabs (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în) will not be in any Madhhab. He
will be a lâ madhhabî. Deeds of such a lâ-madhhabî person will not be
compatible with Islam. They will be worthless. He will have made a game of
Islam.
2) Confining Muslims and
their ’ibâdât to a single way will make Islam more difficult. Allâhu ta’âlâ and
His Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) would have declared everything
clearly if they wished it so and everything would be done by following only
that one way. But, pitying human creatures, Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) did not declare everything clearly. Various
Madhhabs came out as a result of the interpretations of the ’ulamâ’ of the Ahl
as-Sunna (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în). When a person encounters some
difficulty, he chooses an easy way in his own Madhhab. In case of greater
difficulty, he follows another Madhhab and does that action easily. There would
be no such facility in case there were only one Madhhab. The lâ-madhhabî who
think that they are collecting the rukhsas to establish a single system of easy
ways are, in actual fact, inventing difficulties for Muslims, probably without
being aware of what they are doing.
3) An attempt to do one
part of an ’ibâda according to one Madhhab and another part according to
another Madhhab will mean to mistrust the knowledge of the imâm of the former
Madhhab. As is written above, it will be kufr to say that the Salaf as-sâlihîn
(rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în) were ignorant.
History has witnessed
many people who wanted to make changes in ’ibâdât and who insulted the ’ulamâ’
of the Ahl as-Sunna (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în). It is obvious that
the people who say it is necessary to select the rukhsas of the Madhhabs and to
abolish the four Madhhabs cannot even correctly read or understand one page of
the a’immat al-madhâhib’s books. For, understanding the Madhhabs and the
superiority of the a’imma requires being deeply learned. A person who is
profoundly learned will not lead people to ruination by opening an ignorant,
stupid path. Believing the ignorant and heretical people, who have appeared in
the course of history, leads one to perdition. Following the ’ulamâ’ of the Ahl as-Sunna, who have come in every
century for fourteen hundred years and who have been praised in hadîths, guides
to happiness. We, too, should hold fast to the right way of our ancestors, of
those pious, pure Muslims, of those martyrs who
sacrificed their lives
for the Name of Allâhu ta’âlâ and for the promulgation of Islam. And we should
not be deceived by the poisonous, harmful articles of upstart reformers!
Unfortunately, the
poisonous ideas of ’Abduh, the chief of the Cairo Masonic Lodge, have recently
spread in Jâmi’ al-Azhar in Egypt; thus, in Egypt there have appeared religion
reformers such
as Rashîd Ridâ; Mustafâ al-Marâghî, rector of the Jâmi’ al-Azhar; ’Abd al-Majîd
as-Salîm, muftî of Cairo; Mahműd ash-Shaltut; Tantawî al-Jawharî; ’Abd ar-Râziq
Pasha; Zakî al-Mubârak; Farîd al-Wajdî; ’Abbâs ’Aqqâd; Ahmad Amîn; Doctor Tahâ
Husain Pasha; Qâsim Amîn; and Hasan al-Bannâ. Even more unfortunately, as was
done to their master ’Abduh, these have been regarded as “modern Muslim
scholars,” and their books have been translated into many languages. They have
caused many ignorant religious men and young Muslims to slip out of the right
way.
The Great Muslim scholar
Sayyid ’Abdulhakîm-i Arwâsî (rahmatullâhi ’aleyh), the mujaddid of the
fourteenth century of the Hegira, said: “’Abduh, Muftî of Cairo, could not
understand the greatness of the ’ulamâ’ of Islam. He sold himself to the
enemies of Islam and at last became a freemason and one of the ferocious
disbelievers who have been demolishing Islam insidiously.”
Those who rolled down
into disbelief or bid’a or heresy, like ’Abduh, always competed with one
another in misleading also those young religious men who succeeded them. They
pioneered the disasters which were prophesied in hadîth ash-sherîf, “Ruination of
my Umma will come through the fâjir (heretical) men of religious authority.”
After ’Abduh’s death in
Egypt in 1323 (
meeting contemporary
needs in changing of Islam. The only thing that is common among religion
reformers is that each of them introduces himself as a real Muslim and an
Islamic scholar of extensive knowledge who has comprehended real Islam and
modern needs. They describe as “imitators who think vulgarly” those true, pious
Muslims who have read and understood Islamic books and who have been following
in the footsteps of the ’ulamâ’ of the Ahl as-Sunna, who were given the good
news that they were Rasűlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) inheritors and who were
praised in the hadîth ash-sherîf: “Their time is the best of times.” The reformers’
declamations and articles show clearly that they know nothing of the rules of
Islam or the teachings of fiqh; that is, they are devoid of religious knowledge
and are grossly ignorant. In the hadîths, “The highest people are the scholars who
have îmân”; “The ’ulamâ’ of the religion are the prophets’ inheritors”; “The
heart’s knowledge is a secret of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s mysteries”; “The âlim’s sleep
is an ’ibâda”; “Revere the ’ulamâ’ of my Umma! They are the stars on the
earth”; “The ’ulamâ’ will intercede on the Day of Judgement”; “The fuqâhâ’ are
inestimable. It is an ’ibâda to be in their company,” and “An ’âlim
among his disciples is like a Prophet among his Umma,” does our Prophet
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) praise the Ahl as-Sunna scholars of thirteen
hundred years or ’Abduh and his novices, the upstarts who sprang up later? The
question is answered by our master Rasűlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam)
again: “Each century will be worse than the century prior to it. Thus it
will go on worsening till Doomsday!” and “As Doomsday draws near, men of religious post
will be more rotten, more putrid than putrefied donkey flesh.” These hadîths are written
in Mukhtasaru Tadhkirat al-Qurtubî. All Islamic scholars and thousands of Awliyâ’, whom
Rasűlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) praised and lauded, unanimously say
that the way which has been given the good news of salvation from Hell is the
way of those ’ulamâ’ who are called the Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a, and that those who are
not Sunnî will go to Hell. They also say unanimously that talfîq (unification), that is,
selecting and gathering the rukhsas of the four Madhhabs and making up a single
false Madhhab, is wrong and absurd.
Will a reasonable person
follow the way of the Ahl as-Sunna, which has been praised unanimously by the
’ulamâ’ of Islam (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în), who have come during
the period of a millennium, or will he believe the so-called “cultured,
progressive” people who
are unaware of Islam and who have sprung up within the last hundred years?
Eminent and talkative
ones of the seventy-two heretical groups, who the Hadîth ash-sherîf states will
go to Hell, have always attacked the ’ulamâ’ of the Ahl as-Sunna (rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în) and attempted to censure these blessed Muslims; yet
they have been disgraced with answers corroborated with âyats and hadîths.
Seeing that they were unsuccessful with knowledge against the Ahl as-Sunna,
they embarked on raid and murder, killing thousands of Muslims in every
century. On the other hand, members of the four Madhhabs of the Ahl as-Sunna
have always loved one another and lived brotherly.
Rasűlullah (sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam) declared: “Muslims’ parting into Madhhabs in matters of
daily life is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion [for them].” But such religion reformers as Rashîd
Ridâ, who was born in 1282 (
Enemies of Islam have
been trying to annihilate Islam since the time of our Prophet. Today,
freemasons, communists, Jews and Christians attack with various plans. Also,
those heretical Muslims, who, as it was declared, will go to Hell, play tricks
and slander the Ahl as-Sunna, the followers of the right way, and mislead
Muslims off the true way. Thus they cooperate with the enemies of Islam in
order to demolish the Ahl as-Sunna. These attacks also have been pioneered by
the British, who have employed all their imperial resources,
treasuries, armed forces,
fleets, technology,
politicians and writers in this base war of theirs. So they have demolished the
world’s two greatest Muslim states that had been protectors of the Ahl
as-Sunna, namely the Gurgâniyya State in India and the Ottoman Islamic Empire,
which had extended over three continents. They have annihilated Islam’s
valuable books in all countries and swept away Islamic teachings from many
countries. In the Second World War, communists were about to perish altogether,
when they received a last-ditch British succor, which helped them to regain
their strength and spread all over the world. In 1917, British Prime Minister
(1902-5) James Balfour established the Zionist organization, which
worked for the reestablishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, a holy place for
Muslims, and the continuous support given to this organization by the British
Government resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1366 (
Abdurrashîd Ibrahim
Efendi says in a passage entitled “The Hostility of the British Towards Islam”
in the second volume of the Turkish book Âlam-i Islâm printed in Istanbul in
1328 (
Not only were Muslim countries stained with blood by the British for hundreds of years, but also Scotch freemasons deceived thousands of Muslims and religious men, made them freemasons, and through such empty words as “helping humanity, brotherhood,” caused them to dissent from Islam and
become apostates
willingly. In order to annihilate Islam throughly, they used these apostate
masons as tools. Thus, freemasons such as Mustafâ Rashîd Pasha, ’Âlî Pasha,
Fuad Pasha, Midhat Pasha and Tal’at Pasha were used to demolish Islamic states.
Freemasons such as Jamâl ad-dîn al-Afghânî, Muhammad ’Abduh and novices trained
by them were the cat’s paws in defiling and annihilating Islamic knowledge. Of
the hundreds of destructive and subversive books written by these masons, who
occupied religious posts, the book Muhâwarât by the Egyptian Rashîd
Ridâ has been translated into many languages and distributed in Islamic
countries; with this method, they have been trying to defile Muslims’ religion
and faith. And it is seen that those young religious men who have not read or
understood the books of the ’ulamâ’ of the Ahl as-Sunna (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
’alaihim ajma’în) have been seized by this current and pushed into perdition
and have also brought perdition to others.
The book Muhâwarât attacks the four Madhhabs
of the Ahl as-Sunna, denies ijmâ’ al-Umma, one of the four sources
of Islamic knowledge, and says that everybody should act upon what he deduces
from the Book (Qur’ân al-Kerîm) and the
Sunna (Hadîth ash-sherîf); thus, it attempts to exterminate Islamic teachings.[1]
It is said at the end of
the book Hulâsat-ut-tahqîq that a Muslim either has become a mujtahid or has not
reached the grade of ijtihâd. A mujtahid is either mutlaq (absolute) or muqayyad (belonging to a Madhhab).
It is not permissible for a mujtahid mutlaq to follow another mujtahid; he has
to follow his own ijtihâd. However, it is wâjib for a mujtahid muqayyad to
follow the methods of the Madhhab of a mujtahid mutlaq; and he acts upon his
own ijtihâd which he employs in accordance with these methods.
---------------------------------
[1] In order to inform Muslim brothers of the tricks and harms of this
book, we prepared our Answer to an Enemy of Islam in 1394 (
A person who is not a
mujtahid should follow whichever one he likes of the four Madhhabs. However,
when doing an act in accordance with a certain Madhhab, he has to observe all
the conditions required by that Madhhab for it to be sahîh. If he does not
observe even one of the conditions, his act will not be sahîh; it has been stated
unanimously that such an act will be in vain (bâtil). Though it is not a must
for him to believe that his Madhhab is superior, it will be good if he believes
so. Talfîq, that is, to do any ’ibâda or any act in accordance with
the rules of more than one Madhhab that disagree with one another or, to put it
more clearly, to select eclectically those rules of these Madhhabs which
disagree with one another in performing that ’ibâda, means to go out of the
four Madhhabs and to make up a fifth Madhhab. This ’ibâda will not be sahîh in
any of the Madhhabs mixed with one another; it will be in vain and will mean to
make a game of Islam. For example, if some najâsa has been dropped into a
certain amount of water of less than hawd kabîr and more than qullatain[1] and if the colour, taste
or odor of the water has not changed and if a person performs ablution with
this water without intending formally (niyya) to perform an ablution and if he
does not wash certain parts of his body in the prescribed succession and if he
does not rub his hands against them and if he does not wash them one right
after another and if he begins his ablution without saying the Basmala, his
ablution will not be sahîh according to any of the four a’immat al-madhhâhib.
He who says that it is sahîh will have made up a fifth Madhhab. Even a mujtahid
cannot give a fifth opinion disagreeing with the unanimity of the four
Madhhabs. [The amount of water equaling a qullatain was explained in detail
in the seventh chapter of the fourth fascicle of the book Endless Bliss.] Sadr ash-Sharî’a writes
in his book Tawdîh, “When two different views concerning something were
transmitted from the Sahâbat al-kirâm, the posterior ’ulamâ’ were not permitted
to propose a third one according to unanimity. There are also those (scholars)
who said that the ’ulamâ’ of every century would be like the Sahâbat al-kirâm.”
Molla Khusraw (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh) wrote in his work Mir’ât
al-usűl, “When
two different views about doing something were transmitted from the scholars of
the first century, it was not permissible, according to ijmâ’, to
---------------------------------
[1] Hawd kabîr, ‘great
pool’ of at least
give a third view. It is
sahîh to say that the ’ulamâ’ of every century were like the as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm.” Jalâl ad-dîn al-mihâllî, the first author of the tafsîr book al-Jalâlain, says in the commentary to
Jam’ al-Jawâmi’ by as-Suyűtî, “It is harâm to disagree with ijmâ’. It is
prohibited in Qur’ân al-kerîm. For this reason, it is harâm to express a third
opinion about something on which the Salaf as-shalihîn disagreed.”
“One’s doing an ’ibâda by
following rules of the two, three or four Madhhabs disagreeing with one another
is disobedience to the ijmâ’ of these Madhhabs; such an ’ibâda will not be
sahîh in any of these Madhhabs. That is, talfîq is not permissible. Qâsim
ibn Qatlűbagha writes in At-tas’hîh, “It is unanimously stated that it is not sahîh to
do an ’ibâda by following two different ijtihâds. For this reason, if a person,
while performing an ablution, does not rub his wet hands over all his head and
if then a dog touches him and then he performs salât, his salât will not be
sahîh. It is also written in the book Tawqîf al-hukkâm by Shihâb ab-dîn Ahmad
ibn al-’Imâd (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh), a Shâfi’î scholar, that such a salât
will be wrong according to the unanimity.” According to Imâm Mâlik and al-Imâm
ash-Shâfi’î (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihimâ), the ablution and salât of such a
person will not be sahîh because, according to the former imâm, he did not rub
his wet hands on his whole head and, according to the latter imâm, he touched a
dog.
Muhammad al-Baghdâdî
(rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh), a Hanafî scholar, writes in his booklet Taqlîd, “There are three
stipulations for imitating another Madhhab. The first one, which is also
written by Ibn Humâm in his work, Tahrîr, is that a person cannot
finish in another Madhhab an ’ibâda which he began in accordance with his own
Madhhab. For example, he cannot perform salât in accordance with the Shâfi’î
Madhhab with an ablution which he performed in accordance with the Hanafî
Madhhab. The second stipulation, as quoted by Ibn Humâm in his Tahrîr from Ahmad ibn Idrîs
al-Qarâfî, is that the ’ibâdat he is
doing should not be considered invalid by both of the Madhhabs he is following;
if he, while performing an ablution, follows the Shâfi’î Madhhab and does not
rub his hand on those parts of his body he has to wash in an ablution, and then
if he touches a woman [he is permitted to marry] thinking his ablution will not
break by doing so according to the Mâlikî Madhhab, the salât he performs with
this ablution will not be sahîh according to either Madhhab. The third
stipulation is that one should not seek
after the rukhsas of the
Madhhabs.” Imâm an-Nawawî and many other ’ulamâ’ emphasized the importance of
this stipulation. Ibn Humâm did not state this stipulation. Hasan
ash-Sharnblâlî writes in his Al-’iqd al-farîd, “The nikâh performed
without the presence of the walî (guardian of either of the intended couple who is
not yet pubescent) by following the Hanafî Madhhab or that which is performed
without the presence of eye-witnesses by following the Mâlikî Madhhab, will be
sahîh. However, the nikâh performed with the absence of both the guardian and the
eye-witnesses will not be sahîh. Because it would be very difficult for the
common people to observe this third stipulation they have been prohibited to
imitate another Madhhab unless there is a pressing necessity (darűra) to do so.
It has been said that it will not be sahîh to imitate another Madhhab without
consulting an ’âlim.”
Ismâ’îl an-Nablusî
(rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh), in his annotation to the commentary for Ad-durar, refers to Al-’iqd
al-farîd and
says, “One does not have to remain attached to a Madhhab. He can do an ’ibâda
of his by imitating another Madhhab as well. But then he has to observe all the
conditions required in that Madhhab for that ’ibâda. He can perform two ibâdas
not related to each other in two different ways by following two different
Madhhabs.” The necessity of observing all of the conditions when imitating
another Madhhab exposes the fact that unification (talfîq) of the Madhhabs is
not sahîh.
’Abd ar-Rahmân al-’Imâdî
(rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh), a Hanafî scholar, says in his book Al-muqaddima, “A person can imitate any
of the three Madhhabs other than his when there is a pressing necessity. Yet,
he has to observe all the conditions required in that Madhhab for that ’ibâda.
For example, a Hanafî who performs an ablution from a qullatain amount of water
stained with najâsa by imitating the Shâfi’î Madhhab, has to intend formally
for performing the ablution, has to rub his hand on those parts of his body
that have to be washed in ablution, has to recite al-Fâtiha when performing the
salât behind the imâm [in congregation], and must certainly observe ta’dîl
al-arkân. It has been stated unanimously that his salât will not be sahîh if he
does not do all of these.” His remark ‘pressing necessity’ for imitating
another madhhab was superfluous. By ‘necessity’ he must have meant the ‘need’
for imitating; for, according to the majority of the ‘ulamâ’, one does not have
to follow continuously the same Madhhab. One can follow another Madhhab if a
difficulty (haraj)
appears while following
one’s Madhhab. All of what has been written so far shows that unification
(talfîq) of the Madhhabs is not sahîh.
Ibn Humâm’s work Tahrîr does not contain any
statements indicating that talfîq is sahîh. Muhammad al-Baghdâdî and al-Imâm
al-Manâwî write that Ibn Humâm says in the book Fath al-qadîr:
“It is a
sin to transfer oneself to another Madhhab by using an ijtihâd or a document as
a proof. Ta’zîr (chastisement) should be inflicted on such a person. It is even
worse to transfer without an ijtihâd, a support. To transfer (in this context)
means to act and perform an ’ibâdât in accordance with another Madhhab. One
cannot transfer by only saying that one has transferred. This is called a
promise, not a transfer. Even if one says so, one does not have to follow that
Madhhab. The âyat al-kerîma, ‘Ask those who know about what you do not
know,’ commands
us to ask a person who is known [strongly thought] to be an ’âlim about a
(religious) rule. Scholars’ prohibition against changing one’s Madhhab is
intended to prevent an attempt at collecting the rukhsas of the Madhhabs. To
many scholars, every Muslim can follow the ijtihâd which comes easier to him in
different matters.” If an ignoramus says that Ibn Humâm’s last statement shows
that unification of the Madhhabs is sahîh, this reasoning of his is wrong; for,
the statement shows that one action shall be done entirely in accordance with a
single Madhhab, not by following more than one Madhhab. Those who do not belong
to a Madhhab and religion reformers who cannot understand this put forward Ibn
Humâm as a false witness for themselves. On the contrary, Ibn Humâm writes
clearly in his work Tahrîr that unification of the Madhhabs is not
permissible.
Religion reformers point
to Ibn Nujaim’s (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh) writing as an example for
permission for talfîq, which says, “It is written in a fatwâ issued by
Qâdî-Khân that if a piece of land area devoted to a waqf is sold at a ghaban
fâhish price, it will be unlawful, according to Abű Yűsuf (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
’aleyh), because of the ghaban fâhish price. On the other hand, according to
Abű Hanîfa, it is permissible for the deputy to sell it at ghaban fâhish
(exorbitant) price; so the two ijtihâds are unified to make the sale sahîh.”
However, the talfîq in this example takes place within the same one Madhhab.
Both judgements are the results of the same Usűl. Not so is the case with the
talfîq of two Madhhabs. Another evidence showing that Ibni Nujaym does not say
that talfîq is permissible is his own
statement, “A person who
becomes imâm for a jamâ’at whose members are in another Madhhab (and conducts
the namâz in jamâ’at) has to observe the principles of that Madhhab, too,”
which exists in Bahr-ur-râiq, a commentary he prepared for the book Kanz.[1] At this point we end our
translation from the final part of the book Khulâsa-t-ut-tahqîq.
Muhammad ’Abd ar-Rahmân
as-Silhatî (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh), a scholar of India, wrote in his
Persian book Saif al-abrâr al-maslűl ’ala ’l-fujjâr, “While explaining the
hadîth ash-sherîf, ‘Make it easy! Do not make it difficult!’ in his explanation of Mishkât, ’Allâma Hâfiz Hasan ibn
Muhammad at-Tayyibî[2] (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
’aleyh) says, “A person who gathers the easy ways of the Madhhabs becomes a
zindîq.” In summary:
1) Every Muslim has to
follow one of the four Madhhabs when he performs an ’ibâda or an act. It is not
permissible to follow any ’âlim who is not in one of the four Sunnî Madhhabs.
2) Every Muslim may
follow any of the four Madhhabs which he likes and which comes easier to him.
He may carry out an ’ibâda (or an act) in accordance with one Madhhab and
another ibâda in accordance with another Madhhab.
3) As for carrying out an
’ibâda in accordance with more than one Madhhab, it will be necessary to observe
all the requirements of one of these Madhhabs for the soundness of that ’ibâda,
and for that i’bâda to be sahîh in that Madhhab. This is called taqwâ, and is very good. One
would have followed (taqlîd) that Madhhab and would have observed the conditions
in the other Madhhabs. Following a Madhhab is permissible provided one will
observe all its conditions. If one’s ’ibâda is not sahîh according to any of
the Madhhabs he follows, this is called talfîq, which is never
permissible.
4) One does not have to always
remain attached to the Madhhab one has chosen. One can transfer oneself to
another Madhhab any time one likes. Adapting oneself to any Madhhab requires
learning well the teachings of fiqh in that Madhhab, which can be learned from
’ilm al-hâl books. Therefore, it will be easier to remain attached to one
madhhab all the time. It is difficult to transfer oneself to or, for an affair,
to imitate another
---------------------------------
[1]
Khulâsat at-tahqîq,
final part.
[2]
At-Tayyîbî passed away in
Damascus in 743 (
Madhhab. It can be done
only in case of a necessity, that is, when there is haraj, and on condition
that one shall observe all its conditions.
Because it is also very
difficult to learn the knowledge of fiqh in another Madhhab, scholars of fiqh
prohibited the ignorant, that is, those who do not have knowledge of fiqh, to
imitate another Madhhab. For example, it is written in Bahr
al-fatâwâ, “If
a person in the Hanafî Madhhab has a wound bleeding continuously and if it is
difficult for him to make an ablution at every prayer time, it is not
permissible for him to perform salât as prescribed in the Shâfi’î Madhhab
without observing the conditions of this Madhhab.” Ibn ’Âbidîn explains this in
detail in the chapter about “Ta’zîr.” In order to protect the ignorant’s
’ibâdât against corruption, scholars of the Ahl as-Sunna (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
’alaihim ajma’în) did not permit them to imitate another Madhhab except in case
of haraj.
At-Tahtâwî writes: “Some
scholars of tafsîr say that the 103rd âyat of Sűrat Âl-i ’Imrân, ‘Hold fast to
Allâhu ta’âlâ’s rope,’ means, ‘Hold fast to what the fuqahâ say.’ People who do
not follow books of fiqh will fall into heresy, be deprived of the aid of
Allâhu ta’âlâ, and be burned in the fire of Hell. O Believers! Meditate over
this âyat-i kerîma and cling to the group of the Ahl as-Sunnat
wa l’-Jamâ’a, who have been given the glad tidings that they shall be saved from
Hell. Allâhu ta’âlâ’s approval and help are only for those who are in this
group. Allâhu ta’âlâ will treat those who are not in this group with wrath and
torment in Hell. Today, belonging to the Ahl as-Sunna requires following one of
the four Madhhabs; one who does not follow one of the four Madhhabs is a man of
bid’a and will go to Hell.”[1] A person who has
gathered the easy ways of the four Madhhabs will not have followed any of the
four Madhhabs. As it is seen, one who does not follow any of the four Madhhabs
is a lâ-madhhabî. One who makes talfîq of the four Madhhabs, that is, by mixing
the four, acts according to any Madhhab that comes easy to him, is a
lâ-madhhabî, too. Also, one who follows one of the four Madhhabs but holds a
belief unconformable to the Ahl as-Sunna is a lâ-madhhabî. These three are not
Sunnîs, they are people of bid’a who follow heresy (dalâla). True Muslims,
however, follow one of the four Madhhabs, that is, the ‘true way.’
---------------------------------
[1] At-Tahtâwî’s commentary to Durr al-mukhtâr, section on ‘Zabâyih’