This book answers the lies and slanders written by a
lâ-madhhabî Egyptian, Rashîd Ridâ, who disguised himself as a religious man,
against the ’ulamâ’ (scholars of Islam) in his book titled Muhâwarât, in which he defends the unification
(talfîq) of the four madhhabs.
And a
few lines further below, he says,
“When there was no nass, as-Sahâba reached a decision with
their own ijtihâd,”
Thus, refuting his own above-quoted words. He writes the
truth in the second quotation. On matters about which there was no nass,
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm (radiy-Allâhu ’anhum) made decisions with their own
ijtihâd, and there were differences on such matters.
These words do not agree with what the ’ulamâ’ wrote.
Dâwûd ibn Sulaimân quotes Ibn Amîr Hâj as saying: “My master Ibn Humâm said it
was necessary for a non-mujtahid to follow one of the four madhhabs.”[2] Ibn Nujaim al-Misrî wrote: “As
explained clearly in Tahrîr by Ibn Humâm, it is unanimous among the ’ulamâ’
that anything that does not agree with any of the four madhhabs is wrong.”[3] ’Abd
al-Ghanî an-Nabulusî quotes Ibn Humâm on this subject and adds: “Hence, it is
understood that it
[1] (Quotations 1-4) the preface to the Turkish version (by Hamdi Akseki) of Muhâwarât.
[2] Dâwûd ibn
Sulaimân, Ashadd al-jihâd, p. 16.
[3] Ashbâh,
“Ijtihâd,” the first chapter of the second part.
is not
permissible to follow any madhhab other than the four madhhabs. Today,
following Hadrat Muhammad’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) religion is possible only by
following one of the four madhhabs. ‘Taqlîd’
means to accept somebody’s word without searching for his proof (dalîl). And
this is done by intending with the heart. Anything done without an intention
becomes wrong (bâtil). It is a mujtahid’s duty to understand the proof. A
muqallid has to follow one of the four madhhabs in everything he does.
According to the majority of the ’ulamâ’, it is permissible for him to follow
different madhhabs in different affairs. So did the book Tahrîr write. But it
has been reported unanimously that something which he began doing in accord
with a madhhab has to be finished as required in the same madhhab, without
uniting the other madhhabs.[1] There have been also those
scholars who have said that when a person begins following one madhhab, he
should not follow another madhhab in any other thing he does unless there is a
strong necessity.”[2]
The a’immat al-madhâhib’s doing ’ibâda according to one
another’s madhhab, contrary to what the reformers think, was not with the
intention of following one another’s madhhab. They did so by following their
own ijtihâd on that matter at that moment. It is not right to say that
everybody did so by putting forward the fact that the mujtahids did so. It is
not worthy of a man of a religious post to say this word without giving a true
example.
This statement is a very loathsome error which can never
be forgiven. He imputes to the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh the guilt of those who, like
himself, went out of the madhhabs and attempted to defile the madhhabs. Very
old and recently printed books of the scholars belonging to the four madhhabs
are obvious; none of them contains any statement or fatwâ that will change the
ijtihâd of the a’immat al-madhâhib. The lâ-madhhabî people such as ’Abduh and
his followers are certainly outside the circle of those scholars. They are the
people who want to undermine the madhhabs. However, none of the words of these
lâ-madhhabî people exists in current fiqh books. “Fiqh books” are written by
fiqh scholars. Books written by the ignorant, the lâ-madhhâbî or
[1] See
below, article 33.
[2] Khulâsat
at-tahqîq.
those who mix Islam with politics are not called
“fiqh books.” Their corrupt writings cannot be grounds for blemishing the
scholars of fiqh.
Not the a’immat al-madhâhib but the lâ-madhhabî say these
words. The a’immat al-madhâhib say, “The follower (muqallid) does not have to
know the documents of the mujtahid. The words of the imâm al-madhhab are
documents for him.”
This statement is an expression of his belief in
evolution, which is held by masons. Early people had little intellects, and
today’s disbelievers are very intelligent, he means. He implies that early prophets (’alaihimu ’s-salâm) and their companions
were unintelligent. He who believes so becomes a kâfir. Adam, Shit, Idrîs, Nûh
(Noah) and many other prophets (’alaihimu ’s-salâm)
were among the early people. All of them were more intelligent than all of
today’s human beings. A hadîth sherîf says that each century will be worse than
the one preceding it. Rashîd Ridâ contradicts this hadîth sherîf.
The lâ-madhhabî people like Rashîd Ridâ, in order to
attack the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunna, choose a tricky way. For doing this,
first they write about the assaults of the seventy-two groups [for whom the
Hadîth says will go to Hell] against the Ahl as-Sunna, and about the bloody
events which they caused, and then they basely lie by adding that the four
madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunna fought one another. The fact, however, is that not a
single fight has ever taken place between the Shâfi’îs and the Hanafîs at any place
at any time. How could they ever fight despite the fact that both belong to the
Ahl as-Sunna! They hold the same belief. They have always loved one another and
lived brotherly. Let us
[1] (Quotations
5-9) the Arabic preface to Muhâwarât by Rashîd Ridâ.
see if the lâ-madhhabî people, who say that those
people fought, can give us an example after all! They cannot. They write, as
examples, the jihâds which the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunna co-operatively
made against the lâ-madhhabî. They try to deceive Muslims with such lies.
Because the name “Shâfi’î” of the Ahl as-Sunna and the word “Shî’a” sound
alike, they narrate the combats between the Hanafîs and the lâ-madhhabî as if
they had taken place between the Hanafîs and the Shâfi’îs. In order to blemish
the Muslims who follow the madhhabs, those who reject the four madhhabs slander
them by misinterpreting some special terms. For example, referring to the
dictionary Al-munjid written by
Christian priests, they define the word ‘ta’assub’ as ‘holding a view under the
influence of non-scientific, non-religious and irrational reasons’, in order to
give the impression that the teachings of madhhabs as ta’assub, and say that
ta’assub, has caused conflicts between madhhabs. However, according to the
scholars of Islam, ‘ta’assub’ means
‘enmity that cannot be justified.’ Then, attaching oneself to a madhhab or
defending that this madhhab is based on the Sunna and on the sunnas of
al-Khulafâ’ ar-râshidîn (radiy-Allâhu ’anhum) is never ta’assub. Speaking ill
of another madhhab is ta’assub, and the followers of the four madhhabs have
never done such ta’assub. There has been no ta’assub amongst the madhhabs
throughout Islamic history.
The lâ-madhhabî, who are the followers of one of the
seventy-two heretical groups, endeavoured much to sidetrack the Umayyad and
Abbasid caliphs from the Ahl as-Sunna. Those who achieved it caused bloody
events. It is a base slander against the scholars of Islam to accuse them of
ta’assub because they, to prevent the harm of the lâ-madhhabî, counselled these
caliphs and invited them to follow one of the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunna. A
newly developed method for attacking the four madhhabs is: first pick up a
smattering of Arabic, then scan a few history books in a haphazard manner and
with a narrow-minded personal sentiment, then evaluate the various past events
fortuitously encountered, and finally piece them together as the evidences for
the harms of ta’assub, which you somehow attribute to the Sunni Muslims. To
find justification, some of those who are against the madhhabs say that they
are against not the madhhabs but the ta’assub in madhhabs. However, by
misinterpreting ‘ta’assub,’ they attack the fiqh scholars defending their
madhhabs and claim that these scholars caused the bloody events in the
Islamic history. Thereby they try to alienate the younger
generations from the madhhabs.
As it is written in Qâmûs
al-a’lâm, Amîd al-Mulk Muhammad al-Kundurî, the vizier of Seljuqî
Sultan Tughrul Beg, issued a rescript stating that the lâ-madhhabî should be
cursed at minbars[1] and,
therefore, most of the ’ulamâ’ in Khurasan emigrated to other places during the
time of Alb Arslân. Lâ-madhhabî people like Ibn Taimiyya distorted this event
as “The Hanafîs, and the Shâfi’îs fought each other, and the Ash’arîs were
cursed at minbars.” They spread these lies and their own false translations
from as-Suyûtî’s books among young people to deceive them and to destroy the
four Ahl as-Sunna madhhabs and to replace it with lâ-madhhabism.
The following story is one of those related to ta’assub as
it is unjustly attributed to the madhhabs and is claimed to have caused fights
between brothers in Muslim history: Yâqût al-Hamawî visited Rayy in
[1] Pulpits
in mosques.
fiqh scholars, make their attacks with the writings
and words based on Persian tales. Such tales do not harm the superiority and
excellence of the scholars of Ahl as-sunna; on the contrary, they display the
lâ-madhhabî men of religious post are not authorities of Islam but ignorant
heretics who are enemies of Islam. It is understood that they have been
endeavouring to deceive Muslims and thus to demolish the four madhhabs from the
inside by pretending to be men of religious post. To demolish the four madhhabs
means to demolish Ahl as-Sunna, for Ahl as-Sunna is composed of the four
madhhabs with regard to practices (a’mâl, fiqh). There is no Ahl as-Sunna
outside these four madhhabs. And to demolish Ahl as-Sunna means to demolish the
right religion, Islam, which Hadrat Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) brought from
Allâhu ta’âlâ, for, the Ahl as-Sunna are those Muslims who walk on the path of
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm (radiy-Allâhu ’anhum). The path of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm is
the path of Hadrat Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm), who, in the hadîth, “My Companions are like the stars in the sky. If you follow
any one of them you will find the right way,” orders us to follow
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm.
Taqlîd (following, adapting oneself to) is done in two
respects. First is the following in respect of belief (’itiqâd, îmân). Second
is the following in respect of actions to be done (a’mâl). To follow as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm means to follow them in respect of the facts to be believed. In other
words, it is to believe as they did. Those Muslims who believe as as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm did are called Ahl as-Sunna. In
respect of practices, that is, in each of those actions that are to be done or
avoided, it is not necessary to follow all as-Sahâbat al-kirâm since it is
impossible. It cannot be known how as-Sahâbat al-kirâm did every action.
Moreover, many matters did not exist in their time and appeared afterwards. The
father of Ahl as-Sunna was Hadrat al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa (rahmatullâhi
’alaih). All the four madhhabs have believed what he had explained and what he
had learned from as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. Al-Imâm al-a’zam was a contemporary of
some Sahâbîs. He learned much from them. And he learned further through his
other teachers. That al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î and Imâm Mâlik had different comments
on a few matters concerning belief does not mean that they disagreed with
al-Imâm al-a’zam. It was because each of them expressed what they themselves
understood from al-Imâm al-a’zam’s word. The essence of their words is the
same. Their ways of explaning are different. We believe and love all the
A snide trick which the lâ-madhhabî people often have
resort to is to write about the badness of the difference in those subjects
concerning belief and try to smear this badness on to the difference among the
four madhhabs. It is very bad to be broken into groups concerning îmân. He who
dissents from Ahl as-Sunna in îmân becomes either a kâfir (disbeliever) or a
heretic (a man of bid’a in belief). It is stated in the hadîths of the Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) that both kinds of people
will go to Hell. A kâfir will remain in Hell eternally while a heretic will
later go to Paradise.
Some of those who have dissented from the Ahl as-Sunna
have become disbelievers, but they pass themselves off as Muslims. They are of
two kinds. Those of the first kind have depended upon their mind and points of
view in interpreting the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the
Hadîth ash-sherîf so much so that their errors
have driven them to kufr (disbelief). They think of themselves as followers of
the right path and believe that they are true Muslims. They cannot understand
that their îmân has gone away. They are called “mulhids.”
Those of the second kind have already disbelieved Islam and are hostile to
Islam. In order to demolish Islam from within by deceiving Muslims, they
pretend to be Muslims. In order to mix their lies and slanders with the
religion, they give wrong, corrupt meanings to âyats, hadîths and scientific
teachings. These insidious unbelievers are called “zindîqs.”
The freemasons occupying religious posts in Egypt and the so-called Socialist
Muslims, who have appeared recently, are zindîqs. They are also called “bigots
of science” or “religion reformers.”
The Qur’ân al-kerîm and the
Hadîth ash-sherîf declare that it is bad to be
broken into groups in respect of îmân and prohibit this faction strictly. They
command Muslims to be united in one single îmân. The faction prohibited in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth
ash-sherîf is the faction in respect of îmân. As a matter of fact, all prophets (’alaihimu ’s-salâm) taught the same îmân.
From Âdam (’alaihi ’s-salâm), the first prophet,
to the last man, the îmân of all Believers is the same. Zindîqs and mulhids say
that those âyats and hadîths which condemn and prohibit breaking in îmân refer
to the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunna. However, the Qur’ân
al-kerîm commands the differentiation of the four madhhabs. The Hadîth ash-sherîf states that this difference is
Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion upon Muslims.
It is an utterly loathsome, very base lie and slander to
twist the
Mongolian invasion of the Muslim countries and the
destruction of and bloodshed in Baghdad into the “Hanafî-Shâfi’î disputes,”
which never took place in the past and which will never take place in future.
These two madhhabs have the same îmân and love each other. They believe that
they are brothers and know the insignificant difference between them concerning
a’mâl (acts) or ’ibâdât (practices) is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion. They believe
that this difference is a facility. If a Muslim belonging to a madhhab
encounters a difficulty in doing an act in his madhhab, he does it in
accordance with one of the other three madhhabs and thus avoids the quandary.
Books of the four madhhabs unanimously recommend this facility and note some
occasions. Scholars of the four madhhabs explained and wrote the evidences and
documents of their own madhhabs not in order to attack or –Allah forfend– to
slander one another, but with a view to defending the Ahl as-Sunna against the
lâ-madhhabî people and preserve the confidence of their followers. They wrote
so and said that one could follow another madhhab when in difficulty. The
lâ-madhhabî, that is, the mulhids and zindîqs, finding no other grounds for
attacking the Ahl as-Sunna, have been meddling with and misinterpreting these
writngs which are right and correct.
As for the Tatars’ and Mongols’ invading Muslim countries,
history books write its causes clearly. For example, Ahmad Jawdad Pasha wrote:
“Musta’sim, the last ’Abbâsid Caliph, was a very pious
Sunnî. But his vizier, Ibn Alqamî was lâ-madhhabî and disloyal to him. The
administration of the State was in his hands. His sheer ideal was to overthrow
the ’Abbâsid state and establish another state. He wished for Baghdad to be
captured by the Mongol ruler Hulago, and he himself become his vizier. He
provoked him into coming to Iraq. Writing a harsh reply to a letter from
Hulago, he incited him. Nasîr ad-dîn Tusî, another lâ-madhhabî heretic, was
Hulago’s counsellor. He, too, incited him to capture Baghdad. The intrigues
were played in the hands of these two heretics. Hulago was made to advance
towards Baghdad. The Caliph’s army of about twenty thousand could not stand
against the arrows of two hundred thousand Tatars. Hulago assaulted Baghdad
with naphtha fires and catapult stones. After a fifty-day siege, Ibn Alqamî,
under the pretext of making peace, went to Hulago and made an agreement with
him. Then, coming back to the Caliph he said that if they surrendered they
would be set free. The Caliph believed him and surrendered to Hulago on the
twentieth of
Muharram in
The books of all the madhhabs clearly write that a Muslim
who belongs to a madhhab can perform salât behind one belonging to another
madhhab. The idea that the small differences concerning the ’Ibâdât of the four
madhhabs will cause enmity originates from the day-dreams and slanders of the
enemies of the madhhabs, that is, the mulhids and zindîqs. In every part of the
world Muslims of the four madhhabs have been performing salât behind one
another, for, they all know and love one another as brothers. The great Walî,
profound ’âlim Hadrat Mawlânâ Diyâ’ addîn Khâlid al-Baghdadî (d. 1242/1826) was
a Shâfi’î. His murshid (guide, ’âlim, ustadh) Hadrat ’Abdullah ad-Dahlawî, who
gave him faid (the outpouring that flows from the murshid’s heart to the
disciple’s heart which thus attains motion, purity and exaltation) and the
khilâfa [(certificate of) authority to
[1] The Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) gave some of his mantles to some Muslims, from whom the caliphs bought them for large sums of gold. Two of them still exist in Istanbul.
[2] Qisâs-i
Anbiyâ’ (History of the Prophets), p. 890.
instruct others], was a Hanafî. Hadrat ’Abd
al-Qâdir Al-Jîlânî (d. 561/1165) was a Shâfi’î. Seeing that the Hanbalî madhhab
was about to be forgotten, he became a Hanbalî in order to protect and
strengthen it. Jalâl ad-dîn Muhammad Mahallî (d. 864/1459), writer of the
tafsîr book Al-Jalâlain, was a Shâfi’î;
Ahmad ibn Sâwî (d. 1241/1825), who was a Mâlikî, wrote a commentary (sharh) on
this tafsîr book and facilitated its spreading far and wide. While interpreting
the sixth âyat of Sûrat Fâtir in this commentary, he wrote: “The lâ-madhhabîs
who live in the Hijaz, in Arabia, claim that they alone are Muslims. They say
that the Muslims of Ahl as-Sunna are polytheists, though Ahl as-Sunna are the
true Muslims. They are liars. We wish that Allâhu ta’âlâ will annihilate these
heretical people.” Hadrat Ahmad ibn Sâwî’s annotation (hâshiya) on the tafsîr
book Al-Baidâwî won a great fame, too.
The famous ’âlim al-Baidâwî (d. 685/1286) was a Shâfi’î. His tafsîr is one of
the most valuable tafsîr books. Most ’ulamâ’ of the four madhhabs praised it
and wrote commentaries on it. For example, the commentary by Shaikhzâda
Muhammad Efendî, a Hanafî ’âlim, is famous and very valuable. As all Muslims
know, the number of the books written by the ’ulamâ’ of the four madhhabs, in
which they express their praise and love for one another, exceed thousands.[1]
He represents such a lâ-madhhabî person as Ibn Taimiyya,
who said that Allâhu ta’âlâ was an object, who disbelieved the fact that
non-Muslims would be tormented eternally in Hell, who claimed that it was not
necessary to perform an omitted fard salât, and who tried to demolish Islam
from within through many other similar corrupt ideas, as an Islamic scholar and
murshid, and introduces him as a mujtahid like the great Islamic scholar
al-Ghazâlî. Writing these two names together is a misleading invention like
putting a piece of black stone by the side of a diamond. The Mâlikî scholar
Ahmad ibn Sâwî wrote: “The scholars of Ahl as-Sunna reported that Ibn Taimiyya
deviated from the right path himself and also caused many Muslims to deviate.
It is a lie that he had had companionship with the Mâlikî scholar Imâm Ashhab.”[2]
[1] See
below, the 36th article, for “moving the
finger up.”
[2] The tafsîr book Al-Jalâlain, in the interpretation of the 230th âyat of Sûrat al-Baqara.
“I wrote that the taqlîd was wrong in the periodical Al-Manâr, which I published in 1315 [1898]. I had
taken some of those writings from Imâm ’Allâma Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
Gathering them, I published the book Muhâwarât.”
By writing that the taqlîd (following, being a member of,
one of the four madhhabs) is wrong, the religion reformer blemishes billions of
the Ahl as-Sunna Muslims who have appeared for fourteen hundred years. He means
that they will go to Hell. It must be because the lâ-madhhabî, mulhids and
zindîqs, that is, religion reformers, themselves know about their own defects
that they cannot attack the Ahl as-Sunna openly. By using false, deceptive,
evasive words, they always play behind the curtain. How could it ever be said
to be wrong to follow an imâm al-madhhab? Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the sûras
an-Nahl and al-Anbiyâ’, “Learn by asking those who
know!” and “Adapt yourselves to Ulû ’l-amr (’ulamâ’)!” It is for
this reason that it has been wâjib to follow an imâm al-madhhab. By saying that
it is wrong to follow him, this lâ-madhhabî heretic means to say, “Follow me, not
him!” He tries to make Muslims give up imitating the right way so that they
imitate his own wrong way. The lâ-madhhabî are the imitators of error.
There are two kinds of taqlîd. The first one is the
non-Muslims’ following their parents and priests and remaining in the state of
disbelief. Taqlîd of this kind is certainly wrong (bâtil). The Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth
ash-sherîf prohibit this kind of taqlîd. And it is not enough for a
Muslim to say that he is Muslim just by imitating his parents. A person who
knows, approves and believes the meanings of the six fundamentals of îmân is a
Muslim. It is obvious that imitating somebody in respect of îmân is wrong.
Likewise, it is a wrong imitation to believe the lâ-madhhabî and to dissent
from the Ahl as-Sunna. Further, it is incorrect to liken this to the taqlîd in
respect of a’mâl (acts or practices). The Qur’ân
al-kerîm and the Hadîth ash-sherîf
command this second kind of taqlîd. The hadîth, “My
umma do not agree on deviation!”[1] shows
[1] This hadîth sharîf is quoted in the book Khulâsât at-tahqîq fî bayânî hukmi ’t-taqlîd wa ’t-talfîq by ’Abd al-Ghanî an-Nabulusî (d. 973/1565), in the preface to Al-mizân al-kubrâ by ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî, in various letters in Maktûbât by al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî Ahmad al-Fârûqî as-Sirhindî (d. 1034/1624) and at the end of Hujjat-Allâhi ’ala ’l-âlamîn by Yûsuf an-Nabhânî.
that all
of what the scholars of the right path have written is correct. Those who are
against this are unjust and wrong. By the consensus of millions of the Ahl
as-Sunna and thousands of Awliyâ’, who have appeared for thirteen hundred
years, it is wâjib for a Muslim who is not a mujtahid to follow a mujtahid whom
he believes, trusts and likes so that he can do his actions and ’ibâdât
correctly. He who disbelieves this consensus will be disbelieving this
Hadîth
sherîf. This consensus also shows that a mujtahid should act in accordance with
his own ijtihâd, and he is not permitted to follow another mujtahid. Each
Sahâbî (Muslim who saw the Prophet at least
once) was a mujtahid. For this reason, they disagreed with one another on some
actions. Likewise, Imâm Yûsuf’s not renewing his ablution on a Friday and
al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î’s not raising his hands after bowing during salât as he
visited al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa’s grave were in no way the taqlîd of
others; they followed their own ijtihâds on these occasions.
“The virtuous young reformer, in order to make Muslims
attain happiness, wants to rescue them from the nuisance of taqlîd, which
appeared later, and to help them to follow the Book, the Sunna and the path of
the Salaf. In the first century [of Islam] even shepherds used to get their
religious knowledge directly from the Book and the Sunna.”
See the buffoonery of Rashîd Ridâ’s! He says “virtuous” for the one who is a heretic like himself. Through the mouth of an ignorant religion reformer, he attempts to advise the old reverend preacher. He says “nuisance “ about the blessing of the taqlîd which is commanded by Allâhu ta’âlâ and Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and which is necessary in the unanimous inference of Islamic scholars. He does not realize that imitating one of the four madhhabs is an imitation which is right, and dissenting from a madhhab by following a lâ-madhhabî is an imitation which is wrong. He makes fun of the respectable preacher and of the blessed word ‘wâ’iz’ (preacher). He does not know that he who makes fun of the blessed words peculiar to men with religious responsibilities becomes a non-Muslim. If we had not known the Hadîth ash-sherîf, “The most atrocious, the basest people will come to preside over Muslims,” we would have been astonished at the unfortunate fact that this man occupied a position of issuing
fatwâs in such a Muslim country as Egypt. O you the
base heretic! Instead of making fun of Muslims and having preachers act in
plays, why don’t you come forward honestly and challenge Jews, Christian
missionaries, freemasons and communists? No, you cannot even look askance at
them. Masons are your masters, patrons.
Who do you think you are being deceitful with the words,
“to rescue Muslims from the nuisance of taqlîd... and to help them to follow
the Book (the Qur’ân al-kerîm), the Sunna and
the way of the Salaf”? Your words contradict each other. Isn’t it taqlîd to
cling to the Book, to the Sunna and to the path of the Salaf? And this taqlîd
that you wish for is possible only by following one of the four a’immat
al-madhâhib. To abandon that taqlîd, which you call “nuisance,” will mean to
abandon the taqlîd of the book, of the Sunna and of the path of the Salaf, thus
to go out of Islam; what you want is this wrong taqlîd. Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam) declared: “He who interprets the
Book and the Hadîth according to his own view becomes a non-Muslim.”
You want to drive Muslims to the taqlîd which is wrong. Take the mask off your
face! Reveal the fact that you are an enemy of Islam so that we may answer you.
For the time being we quote one line from one of your fellow freemasons:
“Do you think of everybody as blind, and all the people as
stupid?”
Do not insult the Muslims of the first century by calling
them “shepherds”! Don’t represent them as ignorant! They were all learned,
whether they were shepherds, fighters or commanders. They were all mujtahids.
Certainly they could get knowledge directly from the Book.
Since 1150 (1737), lâ-madhhabism, that is, the bid’a of
disapproving the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna, has been spread over the world. The
ignorant in Saudi Arabia have been the leaders of this destructive and
disunionist activities which harm Islam from the inside and makes
brothers-in-Islam enemies to one another. The lâ-madhhabî, who came to power by
attacking the Ahl as-Sunna Muslims and plundering and killing under torture
thousands of innocent women and children, founded a state with the help of the
British in 1350 (1932) and began propagandizing through the organizations in
various countries which they established with diplomatic power and the
financial support of hundreds of thousands of gold coins annually. Through the
publications that are full of lies and slanders, they deceive
ignorant people and try to annihilate Islam from
within.
Wahhâbism was founded by Muhammad ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb. He
was born in Najd in 1111 [1699], and died in 1206 [1792]. His father and his
brother Sulaimân ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb were pure Muslims and Ahl as-Sunna
scholars. Like other scholars in the Hijaz, they, too, explained to Muslims
that Wahhâbism was a false path. Many books were written to protect Ahl
as-Sunna, which was true Islam. For example. Sulaimân ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb, in
order to admonish his brother, wrote at the beginning of his work:
“Allâhu ta’âlâ sent Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) as the Prophet for all human beings. He explained everything
that was necessary for men in the Book, Al-Qur’ân al-kerîm, which
He sent to him; He created whatever He had promised him. He declared that He
was going to protect the religion of Islam, which He sent through him, against
alteration and corruption until the end of the world. He said also that
Muhammad’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) umma was the best of mankind; and the Prophet gave the glad tidings that this umma would
never become corrupt until the end of the world and commanded men to hold fast
to his path. Allâhu ta’âlâ, in the 114th âyat of the Sûrat an-Nisâ’, declares: ‘We will throw the one who deviates from the Believers’ path
into Hell.’ Therefore, the ijmâ’ (agreement, unanimity) among the
’ulamâ’ of Islam has become a hujja (document) and a dalîl (proof, evidence)
for religious knowledge. Deviation from this ijmâ’ has become a prohibition.
Those who do not know this path of ijmâ’ should learn it by asking those who
know, which is a command stated in the 43rd âyat of the Sûrat an-Nahl. This
âyat is explained in the Hadîth ash-sherîf, ‘Ask those who know about what you do not know. The cure
for ignorance is to learn by asking.’
“As the ’ulamâ’ of Islam say unanimously, a mujtahid is a person who has memorized the Arabic
vocabulary; who knows the different, literal and allegorical meanings of words;
who is an ’âlim of fiqh; who has committed the Qur’ân
al-kerîm to his memory and knows the ways it is read (qirâ’a); who knows
the tafsîrs of all the âyats of the Qur’ân al-kerîm;
who can distinguish between muhkam and mutashâbih, nâsikh and mansûkh, qasas
and other âyats and sahîh, muftarî, muttasil, munqati’, mursal, musnad, mashhur
and mawqûf hadîths; who also is a possessor of wara’, whose nafs has attained
tazkiya (rescuing the nafs from its (harmful desires); and who is sâdiq
(sincere in his word) and amîn (trustworthy). Only such a personage who has all
these
excellences can be followed (taqlîd) and can issue
fatwâs. If he lacks one of these qualities, he cannot be a mujtahid and should
not be followed. He himself should follow a mujtahid. Hence, a Muslim is either
a mujtahid or a muqallid (one who practises taqlîd). There is not
a third alternative. It is fard for muqallids to follow a mujtahid. This has
been said unanimously. Even Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya [d. 751/1350], whom the
Wahhâbîs praise as an ’allâma whose every word is a document, said in his I’lâm al-muqi’în, ‘Aperson who does not fulfil
the requirements of ijtihâd is not permitted to draw any conclusions from the Qur’ân al-kerîm or the Hadîth
ash-sherîf.’ Today people who recite âyats and hadîths and interpret
them in accord with their points of view are looked on as scholars. People who
quote Ahl as-Sunna scholars in their speeches and books, on the other hand, are
taken no heed of. The ignorant and heretical people who do not fulfil even a
single requirement of ijtihâd are considered as men of religious authority
today. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect Muslims against this calamity! Âmin!”[1]
As quoted in the preceding article, Rashîd Ridâ praises
Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya as the “Imâm ’Allâma” and means that he follows in
his footsteps. And Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, as quoted above, prohibits
non-mujtahids to draw conclusions from the Book and the Sunna. However, Rashîd
Ridâ opposes his words, and this openly shows that he is insincere in the cause
of Islam and that he is an enemy of Islam, who tries to annihilate Islam from
behind the scene.
In this book, we shall not deal with what Rashîd Ridâ
wrote as a religion reformer. But we shall write down the answers which suit
the preacher’s tongue, instead of the answers which he deems worthy of the
preacher. We believe that after reading with attention our dear readers and
pure, true men with a religious duty will understand well the inner nature of
the freemasonic ruse.
[1] Sulaimân ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb, As-sawâ’iq al-ilâhiyya fî ’r-raddî ’alâ ’l-Wahhâbiyya, Nuhbat al-Ahbar, Baghdad, 1306 (1889); photographic reproduction, Istanbul, 1395 (1975).
A preacher cannot be so ignorant as to think that the
definitions of îmân in logic, sociology, anatomy, and even in fiqh and
tasawwuf, are the same, for, he has to be a man of knowledge who has studied
and understood them during his advanced studies in the madrasa. But, if he,
instead of being educated in a madrasa, has been educated in the Jâmi’ al-Azhar
after the reformations were made there by the Muftî of Cairo, Muhammad ’Abduh
(d. 1323/1905) and his novices, he will confuse these definitions with each
other, since the freemasons abrogated scientific and advanced religious courses
at the madrasas both in the Ottoman Empire and in Egypt. They produced
modernist religion reformers who were ignorant in Islam.
A preacher is a Muslim who knows what backbiting (ghîba)
means. He knows that a word which is said about a group is not backbiting,
though the religion reformer may not know the fact.
He makes fun of the basic teachings of Islam and claims
that the word ijmâ’ does not have a
foundation. Scholars of fiqh learned it from the Hadîth
ash-sherîf, “My umma will not have ijmâ’
(that is, they will not agree) on heresy!”
But how could the religion reformer know this fact! He has not heard it from
his so-called modern masters!
Ijmâ’ (consensus) was the agreement of the ijtihâds of
contemporary mujtahids of a century with one another. There has been no
mujtahid mutlaq[1] after
the fourth century, and there has been no ijmâ’ since then. The ijmâ’s in the
preceding centuries were to be used as proofs and documents by the mujtahids of
the later centuries. Unanimity among the muqallids, the ignorant or especially
among the religion reformers cannot be called ijmâ’. The soundest, the most
valuable ijmâ’ was the ijmâ’ of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. The scholars who succeeded
them collected information about those matters which had been communicated as
ijmâ’ and wrote them in their books. The information on those matters on which
there had been no unanimity and the words of non-mujtahids were strictly
prevented from being called ijmâ’.
According to the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna, al-adillat ash-
[1] See page
74.
Shari’iyya, that is, the sources from which Islamic rules were
derived, are four: the Book, the Sunna, qiyâs al-fuqahâ’ and ijmâ’ al-Umma. The
Book is the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The Sunna is he Hadîth ash-sherîf. These two are also called “Nass.” Qiyâs al-fuqahâ’ is composed of the
ijtihâds of the scholars who were mujtahids. One who says that ijmâ’ is not a
dalîl (documentary evidence) does not become a disbeliever. He becomes a man of
bid’a, for he says it out of explaining away (ta’wîl) the dubious nasses. The
Khârijites and other lâ-madhhabî people are in this group. Their words opposing
ijmâ’ do not result in disbelief. However, it causes disbelief for those
ignorant people who are unaware of ta’wîl to express their ideas and thoughts
unconformable to ijmâ’.
A preacher does not talk out of imagination or
supposition. He does not base his decision on possibilities. He knows that it
is not permissible to talk without sufficient knowledge or to decide through
supposition. He does not deny what he sees, but he studies and experiments,
for, the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth ash-sherîf order Muslims to think, to study and
to experiment, and commend those who do so. The book ’Aqâ’id an-Nasafî, which he should have read in a madrasa and
which the religion reformer should not even have heard of, writes about the
means for acquiring knowledge on its very first page.
Muslims do believe in scientific knowledge, but
they do not get deceived by the lies which non-Muslims say under the mask of
science. Trying to deceive Muslims and blemish Islamic religion, those kâfirs,
who are not aware of science, and pretending as scientists, saying lies in the
form of scientific knowledge are called (Science
bigots), or (Religion reformers)
or (Zindîqs). These are separatists who
slander both Islam and the science. If Muslims had not believed in geography,
would they have studied this branch of knowledge? The names and authors of the
geography books that make known Muslims’ studies and discoveries in this field
are written in the books Kashf az-zunûn
and Mawdû’ât al-ulûm and also in
Brockelmann’s German Geschichte der Arabischen
Literatur. Let us ask the religion reformer: who measured first the
length of one meridian on the Sinjar Desert? Weren’t they the Muslims of Ahl
as-Sunna who belonged to one of the four madhhabs? Won’t a Muslim who follows
their path
and who is like them believe in scientific
knowledge?
Moreover, it is a squalid slander against Muslims to
ascribe the statement, “Geography is a branch of knowledge belonging to
non-Muslims, so it is not acceptable,” to a preacher. An ignorant person, a
heretic or a religion reformer who disguises himself as a preacher may speak so
nonsensically. But it would be enmity against Islam to say that an honourable
Muslim following one of the four madhhabs spoke so.
The madhhabs do not prohibit science, technology,
calculation or experimentation; why, then, should a person who follows a
madhhab prohibit them? The madhhabs commend them and order muqallids to learn
them. A person who does not believe or learn them cannot be a follower of an
imâm al-madhhab. It befits the enemies of the madhhabs to attribute such words
to a follower of a madhhab.
A muqallid should know this fact, too. If he does
not know it, he is the follower of no madhhab. The a’immat al-madhâhib said
that people would become evil after Hadrat al-Mahdî[1] and before him there will be
many days of happiness. Muslims should live these happy days and, therefore,
work and make progress materially and spiritually. Allâhu ta’âlâ will certainly
reward the one who works.
The religion reformer, a zindîq, may not, but
Muslims should believe that he will come since all the ’ulamâ’ of Islam
unanimously write that he will come. Such great scholars as al-Imâm as-Suyûtî
and Ibn Hajar al-Makkî (d. 974/1566) wrote books about Hadrat al-Mahdî. They
quoted what more than two hundred hadîths uttered about him and the alâmât
(signs) of his coming in the future.
“Concerning any matter on which there has been no
[1] See the books Endless Bliss and Belief and Islam for detail information about Hadrat al-Mahdî.
ijmâ’, everybody should follow a documentary
evidence that satisfies him. As a matter of fact, to follow a mujtahid means to
follow his proofs.”
Yes, to follow (taqlîd) a mujtahid means to follow his
documentary proofs, namely the Qur’ân al-kerîm
and the Hadîth ash-sherîf. But it was the
mujtahid who found out the proofs for the matter. As a matter of fact, the
madhhabs differed from one another in finding out the proofs. Finding out a
proof for any matter required being an ’âlim in the grade of ijtihâd, a
mujtahid. Indeed, such an ’âlim could not imitate another person; he had to act
in accord with his own ijtihâd.
The fact, however, is that the a’immat al-madhâhib
said that it was not made known when Doomsday would come, that no one but
Allâhu ta’âlâ knew it, and that the kashfs of the Awliyâ’ could not be proofs
or documents for anybody. Those who follow these ’âlims will certainly say so.
It would be a mendacity, an abominable slander to impute any words other than
these to the preacher.
The great scholar Hadrat ’Abdulhakîm-i Arwâsî (d.
1362/1943) said, “Qâdî al-Baidâwî (Bayyad-Allâhu wajhah, May Allâhu ta’âlâ make
his face luminous) was as suitably high as his name and the blessing invoked on
him. He was loved and honoured above all by the mufassirs (’âlim authors of
tafsîr books). He reached the highest grade in the knowledge of tafsîr. He was
a sanad (authority) in every branch of knowledge. He was prominent in all
madhhabs and a guide in every thought. He has been known as an expert in every
branch of science, as a guide in every kind of usûl, and as dependable,
powerful and distinguished by early and late ’ulamâ’. It is a great dare to say
that there are made-up hadîths in the book of such a profound ’âlim. It is to
make a deep precipice in Islam. The tongue of the person who utters such words,
the heart of the one who believes them, and the ears of the one who listens to
them deserve to catch fire. Could not this great man of knowledge distinguish
made-up hadîths from the true ones? What should be said to those who say that
he could not? Or, did he lack religious strength and fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ so
far as to write made-up hadîths and to take no notice of the heavy punishments
which our Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa
sallam) had told about those who would do so? It
would be so wicked, so loathsome to say that he did. Because the meanings of
these hadîths are too lofty for the narrow mind and the thick head of the
person who would say so, he finds no other way than saying that they are
mawdû’.”
“We have not seen the next world; then how can we
associate ash-Sha’rânî’s words about the geographical position of the place
named ‘Mawqif’ and his map of the Sirât, the Mîzân, Hell and Paradise with the
next world? We have not seen any proof in the Book, the Sunna, ’Aql (reason) or
Hikma (wisdom) about such things. It is strange that your shaikhs (masters)
turn away from the world’s most famous and useful geography and draw maps of
the next world which cannot be seen.”
With these words, he attacks the great Awliyâ’ (the elect
loved and protected by Allâhu ta’âlâ) and their karâmât (miracles worked by
Allâhu ta’âlâ through Awliyâ’) and tries to undermine Muslims’ belief in them.
However, he has no right to behave so, for, Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the Qur’ân al-kerîm, “Perform
the dhikr (remembrance of Allâhu ta’âlâ) continually.
Through the dhikr the heart attains itminân (tranquillity).” A hadîth sherîf declares, “The symptom of loving Allâhu ta’âlâ is to remember Him very
much.” The ’ulamâ’ of hadîth said, “Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
performed the dhikr every moment.” It is for this reason that the great ones of
this umma performed the dhikr so much, and thus strived to carry out this
command of Islam, too. By performing the dhikr constantly, their blessed hearts
attained tranquillity, and, as it is stated in the hadîths, “There is a cure for every disease. The cure for the heart
is the dhikr of Allah,” and “The sources of taqwâ (piety, abstention
from harâms) are the ’ârifs’ hearts,”
they were saved from the disease of the heart, from sins. They attained Allâhu
ta’âlâ’s love. And these very scholars, who had taqwâ and whose hearts were
pure, said that while performing the dhikr constantly they forgot about the
world, about everything, that their hearts became like mirrors, and that, like
a dream when everything has been forgotten in sleep, something was manifested
in their hearts. They gave these manifestations such names as “kashf,” “mukâshafa”
or “shuhûd.” Thousands of Awliyâ’ in
every century said so. It is an ’ibâda to perform the dhikr very much. Allâhu
ta’âlâ loves those who do it very much, and their hearts become the sources of
taqwâ. The Book and the Sunna reveal these facts.
These facts are called the “umûr at-tashrî’iyya”
(Islamic matters). He who disbelieves them will have disbelieved the Book and
the Sunna. It has been revealed by true Muslims, whom Allâhu ta’âlâ loves, that
there occurs kashf and shuhûd in the heart. A hadîth sherîf declares, “No discord remains in one’s heart who perform the dhikr
very much.” Those who revealed these facts were not munâfiqs, but
Muslims true in though and in words. Kashf and karâma have been reported by
such people as tawâtur (the state of being widespread, which is a proof of
authenticity and against denial). Moreover, though these are the umûr al-wijdâniyya or umûr
ad-dhawqiyya (matters not shown in Islam but done upon one’s own
judging with one’s conscience) and they cannot be documents for others. Muslims
have been neither commanded nor prohibited to believe them. It is better to
believe than disbelieve what the pious Muslims loved by Allâhu ta’âlâ have
reported as tawâtur. One should have a good opinion of a Muslim and trust his
conduct, even his words concerning ’ibâdât (Islamic rites). The proverb, “He
who denies will be deprived,” has always shown inevitability.
Hadrat ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî was a profound ’âlim
and a great Walî. He is one of the archstones of the Shâfi’î madhhab. He is
loved and admired by the Ahl as-Sunna. The books he read and memorized are
beyond count. Some of them are mentioned in the preface of his Al-mîzân al-kubrâ. Hundreds of his works are
listed in Kashf az-zunûn. Each of his
books is a monument exhibiting his greatness. Hanafî scholars, too, have been
admirers of his deep knowledge, his kashfs and shuhûds. They have reported that
he is one of the “stars on the earth.” It was declared in a
hadîth sherîf, “On the Day of Resurrection, first the prophets and then the ’ulamâ’
and martyrs will intercede.” Holding fast to this
hadîth sherîf, we
expect his intercession. It is obvious that those who attack such eye-apples of
the Ahl as-Sunna are zindîqs. Zindîqs and disbelievers attacked also Muhammad (’alaihi
’s-salâm), the guide of Muslims. Voltaire, the famous disbeliever hostile to
Islam, stooped to making the Master of Mankind, Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm), a
topic for his repulsive plays. So will such base attacks be certainly made upon
the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna, who are the inheritors of the exalted Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm). These great people will
certainly not be blemished by being a subject for the filthy mouths and cracked
pens of the enemies. Falling down on the ground does not
decrease the value of a jewel.
Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî and similar great people, who
were loved by Allâhu ta’âlâ very much, said not that they saw the Mawqif,
Sirât, Paradise or Hell with their eyes, but that they could not be seen in
this world and that they were shown like a dream and were revealed to their
hearts in a manner that could not be known or understood or described. They
revealed this secret to those whom they loved, to their intimate friends. They
said, “Man lam yadhuq lam yadri,” (He who has not tasted cannot understand). It
is ignorance or stupidity to deny something which cannot be understood, and the
comment “impossible, can never be” about something which one cannot understand
is an expression of regression, stubbornness and fanaticism. That is why we
call the religion reformer “a bigot of science.” What else could it be, if not
being a zindîq or enemy against Islam, to make fun of Muslim ’ulamâ’s subtle
knowledge which is beyond the limits of reason and science, by saying that they
drew maps?
But he has the preacher always utter those words
concocted by zindîqs in the name of hadîth. And, having the religion reformer
prove that those words are not hadîths, he has him tell the facts that are
written in the books of the ’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna. Through this trick which
he plays, he endeavours to belittle preachers and Muslims, who are the
followers of the madhhabs, to misrepresent them as ignorant, while introducing
himself and other religion reformers as intelligent, learned men of Islam. No
doubt, those Muslims who have read and understood Islamic books well will not
believe these abominable slanders. But we are writing these lines lest those
who do not know the fact should be deceived by thinking that these writings of
the religion reformer are true. We would suggest, with emphasis, that our young
brothers read the books of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna so that they shall not
be tricked by the religion reformers’ lies.
[1] See the
chapter “Corrupt Religions” in the book Endless Bliss, II.
“Recently most of those who call themselves Ahl as-Sunna
wa ’l-Jamâ’a have not been able to escape the bid’a made up by the Bâtinîs and
others. They are different in name only. If you compare the words of the
Bâtinîs with those of the men of tasawwuf of the fourth and later centuries,
you will find little difference between them.”
Here again the religion reformer reveals his ignorance in
Islam. Contrary to what he writes, the term Ahl
as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a was not invented after Rasûlullah
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam), who had referred to this term and called
Muslims to unite under this name. The hadîths, “Hold
fast to my sunna,” and “Do not depart
from the Jamâ’a,” are the evidence of this call. With his insolent
lie above, the reformer attacks the superior scholars of Ahl as-Sunna and the
great Awliyâ’ and attempts to vilify them. The books of Ahl as-Sunna scholars
are still the same just as they were written a thousand years ago. There may be
ignorant or heretical people in every branch of science and knowledge, among
every class of people, and it is a great injustice to attack the word Ahl
as-Sunna by taking a few such people as examples. And likening the great men of
tasawwuf to the Bâtinîs is one of the tactics of the religion reformers which
they have used most frequently. Mistaking the scholars of bâtin (interior,
hidden knowledge) for the zindîqs called Bâtinîs is like misrepresenting light
as dark, right as wrong, and honest as crooked. Rashîd Ridâ’s book is very far
from being a scientific work; it is more of a writing prepared by a conjurer in
order to deceive and hoodwink the readers.
“I do not see why the scholars of kalâm and fiqh keep
silent against the instigation of the subversive Shî’ites, who have both
deviated themselves and caused others to deviate from the right path, nor can I
explain it to myself. Men of kalâm have always been against the Mu’tazila,
refuted and vehemently resisted against their beliefs. The Mu’tazila doctrine
and its devotees, therefore, have faded away from history. As for the scholars
of fiqh, though all of them belong to Ahl as-Sunna wa ’l-Jamâ’a, they have been
struggling against one another, refuting one another.”
Obviously, these slanders against the scholars of kalâm
and fiqh, which Rashîd Ridâ writes through the preacher, will not convince
anyone. Libraries are full of books of refutation written by the scholars of
Ahl as-Sunna. Those written in Persian are not fewer than the Arabic ones. If
Rashîd Ridâ knew Persian and had read the book Tuhfa-i
Ithnâ ’ashariyya by Hadrat ’Abd al-’Azîz ad-Dahlawî, he could not
help being astonished at how the great scholar rebuts and puts to rout the
lâ-madhhabî. Thouse who read Hadrat Al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî Ahmad al-Fârûqî as-Sirhindî’s
Radd-i Rawâfid, which explains the cause
of the Uzbek Sultan ’Abdullah Shah’s war against them and his conquering them,
and any man of knowledge who sees the book Hujaj-i
Qat’iyya,[1] which
narrates as-Suwaidî’s debate with Nâdir Shah’s men and his overpowering them,
will fully understand that the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna did overcome them. At
the end of the eightieth letter, the translation of the book Maktûbât gives the names and the books of
thirty-two of those scholars who wrote that the lâ-madhhabî are heretical and
that they strive to demolish Islam from within. Also, the idea that the
scholars of fiqh have been struggling with one another is one of the slanders
which the religion reformers have been repeating constantly. This has been
already answered in the sixth article.
“The scholars’ refuting and struggling against one another
originated mostly from falling for the desires of the nafs. The one and only
cause of the birth of the knowledge of kalâm was the Mu’tazila. They [scholars
of kalâm] dived into some matters which the pious Salaf had not. They put
forward some objections to them. And the others stood against their arrows of
objection. With the disappearing of the real scholars of knowledge, of ideas
and deduction, the posterity began to repeat word for word that they had said.
In the process of time these, too, came to no use. These imitators kept silent
against those matters, bid’as and superstitions, which appeared after such
scholars as al-Imâm al-Ash’arî and his followers, and accused those who asked
questions about them of blasphemy. Yet, when these bid’as and heresies were put
forward in a religious guise and colour and had a number of partisans and
supporters,
[1] Please see our book Document of The Right Word, available from Hakîkat Kitâbevi.
this time the men of kalâm also attempted to defend
them by explaining them away. Moreover, the direction of the weapon of accusing
one of blasphemy was changed to turn against those who had objected to these
bid’as and heresies, and they accused them of disbelief and heresy. It is possible
to see this in every generation and in every nation.
“As for men of fiqh, let us listen to al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî
about their attitudes: Hujjat al-Islâm al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî wrote under the topic
‘Kitâb al-’ilm’ in his book Ihyâ’: ‘The
reason why the men of fiqh quarelled, struggled with one another was to
ingratiate themselves with rulers and governors, thus to obtain ranks and to be
qâdîs. For this reason, when carefully observed, it will be seen that the
greatest struggle was between the Shâfi’îs and the Hanafîs. For, these ranks
and posts were always occupied by these two...’ ”
In this passage, Rashîd Ridâ confuses the evil people who
learned fiqh in order to obtain worldly advantages with the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh who
tried to correct the world and the wicked, and thereby tries to belittle and
defame the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh and the a’immat al-madhâhib and prepares grounds for
the war which he would make in order to demolish Islam from within by
abolishing the madhhabs and their taqlîds. Also, he attempts to interpolate
Hadrat al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî’s (d. 505/1111) writing to render the great ’âlim a
false witness for himself. Contrary to what he writes, Hadrat al-Imâm
al-Ghazâlî never blamed the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh. In the fourth chapter of the
subject “ ‘ilm,” he wrote the distinction between the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh and the
wicked people who used the knowledge of fiqh as a means for their worldly
advantages. He wrote: “The ’ulamâ’ of fiqh kept away from rulers and governors.
They would be asked to issue qadâs and fatwâs, but they would refuse. Upon
seeing the greatness and honour associated with these posts, the wicked people
wanted to approach the rulers as muftîs. Because the rulers esteemed the
madhhabs and had been trying to find out whether the Hanafî or the Shâfi’î
madhhab was suitable, those who were not learned began to learn the matters of
difference between the two madhhabs. They were wound up into contraventions and
debates. These wicked men of religious post busied themselves with whatever the
rulers and governors were inclined to.” The religion reformer distorts this
passage of al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî’s, which was about the wicked scholars (’ulamâ
as-sû’), and twists it into animadversion against
the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh; he does not feel shame for having raised the outcry that
the Shâfi’îs and the Hanafîs fought one another.
Another lie peculiar to the religion reformers is to say
that the ’ulamâ’ of Islam followed their nafses. The ’ulamâ’ of fiqh and the
a’immat al-madhâhib said nothing in opposition to the Qur’ân
al-kerîm or the Hadîth ash-sherîf.
Because what they all said was based on the Book and the Sunna, the nafses of
their followers got redeemed of the state of ammâra and became mutma’inna.
Since those who followed them were so, is it possible that their own nafses
would not have been mutma’inna? The nafses of the four a’immat al-madhhâhib and
of all the mujtahids were mutma’inna. Each of them was a Walî who had advanced
in the zâhirî (exterior) knowledge and had reached perfection in the bâtinî
(interior, hidden) knowledge. To say that they followed their nafses means to
vilify all Muslims as well as Islam itself. One should realize how ugly the
accusation is.
The religion reformer, by speaking ill of the later men of
religious duty, denies the Hadîth ash-sherîf, “A mujaddid (strengthener, renewer, of Islam) will come every hundred years. He will strengthen this
religion.” It is true that many Muslims have deviated and
seventy-two heretical groups have appeared. But the deviation of Muslims does
not mean that Islam itself was defiled. There have always been those true pious
Muslims who have not given up following as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. These Muslims are
called Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a. The
’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna have guided the people to the right path in every part of
the world in every century. They have not left any question unanswered. They
have protected Muslims from believing in the lies and slanders of zindîqs, men
of bid’a, and religion reformers. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that Islam will not be
corrupted till the end of the world.
On the other hand, in this magazine he represents
freemasons and religion reformers as Islamic scholars and, by saying that they
will renew Islam, he means that the task of restoring Islam to its honourable
early state will be done by them. Islam was defiled and Islamic books were changed,
he alleges, and they will correct it. But the venom vomited by the snake lying
under his insidious words is directed to destroy Ahl as-Sunna, to
annihilate the books of Ahl as-Sunna, which guide
to the path of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, and to replace these books with the books
of freemasons and the enemies who have been trying to destroy Islam from
within. In short, it is to corrupt Islam, the path of Rasûlullah (’alaihi
’s-salâm) and as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, and thereby to eradicate Islam. This is the very
purpose of religion reformers, of those who say that they will reform the
religion. Their attacking the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna, who show us the
footsteps of the as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, reveals clearly their ignoble motives.
Such insidious disbelievers who strive to demolish Islam from within by
masqureading as Muslims are called “zindîqs.”
Zindîqs can deceive and corrupt Muslims, but they cannot corrupt Islam; Allâhu
ta’âlâ promises that He will protect Islam.
“I do not deny the virtue and knowledge possessed by the
imâms who were mujtahids. Their virtue and knowledge were beyond praise and
glorification. Yet, before the mujtahids, every Muslim used to ask for
documentary evidence. Those who came later ignored the documentary evidence and
exalted the mujtahid imâms to the grade of prophets.
They even preferred the mujtahid’s word to a hadîth. They said that the hadîth
could be mansûkh (said by the Prophet at his
early age, but changed by himself later) or there could be another hadîth in
their imâm’s view. The mujtahids did not find it right to act in accordance
with the words of the persons who could possibly go wrong or who could not know
the matter and who were not safe from errors, and to lay aside the hadîth of
the Prophet, who was free from error. The
muqallids dissented from the Qur’ân, too, which is the evident guide and the
absolute document. They said that it was not permissible to learn the religion
from the Qur’ân and that only mujtahids could understand the meaning of the
Qur’ân. They claimed that it was not permissible to ignore the mujtahid’s word
and to act in accordance with the Qur’ân. They said that it was not permissible
to say, ‘Allah says so,’ or ‘Rasûlullah says so,’ and that we should say, ‘The
fiqh scholar has understood it as such.’ There is not a branch of knowledge
which might exceed, with all its subjects, the capacity of most people and
which can be understood only by certain people of certain times. It is a
requirement of the Divine Law that the later scholars
should be more advanced than the earlier ones, for,
the starting point of the later ones is where the earlier ones have left off.
The Qur’ân and the Hadîth are more understandable than the books of fiqh. A
person who has learned Arabic well understands them more easily. Isn’t Allâhu
ta’âlâ able to explain His religion more explicitly than the men of fiqh?
Rasûlullah understood what Allah meant better than anybody else, and he
explained it clearly and communicated everything.
“If most people had been incapable of deriving rules from
the Book and the Sunna, all the people would not be held liable for these
rules. One should know what one believes together with its proofs. Allah
disapproves of the taqlîd and muqallids. He declares that they will not be
forgiven by imitating their fathers and grandfathers. To understand that part
of the religion concerning fiqh from its documents is easier than understanding
the part concerning îmân. Allâhu ta’âlâ holds us liable for the difficult one.
Is it ever possible that He will not hold us liable for the easy one?
“Prophets did not err, but
mujtahids might have made errors. Mujtahids expanded the religion and made it
several times as much as it was. They drove Muslims into trouble. There cannot
be employed any qiyâs in the field of ’ibâdât; nor can one add anything to
’ibâdât. [However], qiyâs and istihsân (approval of facility) can be employed
in judicial decisions. The mujtahids, too, prohibited men from taqlîd.”
In his sophisms, the religion reformer contradicts himself
time and again. Employing logic in any branch of knowledge requires having some
knowledge of that branch. The intrigues played with a bare reasoning by those
who do not understand the basic knowledge of Islam do not give any result but
rather bring disgrace upon themselves. It is true that those Muslims preceding
the mujtahids, that is, as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, asked for documents; they did not
follow one another. But they were all mujtahids. They were the people of the
first century praised and lauded by Rasûlullah (sall-allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam).
All as-Sahâbat al-kirâm and many of the Tâbi’ûn were mujtahids. It was
necessary for a mujtahid to act in accordance with what he understood, and it
was not permissible for him to follow another mujtahid. A Muslim simply does
not say, “Those who came later exalted the mujtahids
to the grade of prophets,”
nor does he claim that they even held them superior. For this statement
stigmatizes billions of Muslims who have belonged to the four madhhabs as
disbelievers. He who says or writes that a certain Muslim is a disbeliever
becomes a disbeliver himself. It is even a greater slander to accuse muqallids
of dissenting from the Qur’ân al-kerîm. The
religion reformers should know very well that a madhhab means the way of the
Book and the Sunna. He who follows an imâm al-madhhab believes that he follows
the Qur’ân al-kerîm and Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam). No Muslim says, “It is not permissible to ignore the
mujtahid’s word and to act in accordance with the Qur’ân,” nor has any Muslim
ever said so. This is one of the abominable slanders made by religion
reformers, freemasons and zindîqs against pure Muslims. Every Muslim says, “I
want to adapt myself to the Qur’ân al-kerîm and
the Hadîth ash-sherîf, but I myself cannot draw
conclusions from them. I cannot depend on or follow the rules which I
understand. I depend on and follow what the imâm al-madhhab understood, for, he
was more learned than I am. He knew the eight main branches of knowledge and
the twelve subsidiary branches better than I do. He feared Allâhu ta’âlâ more
than I do. He did not draw conclusions from the Qur’ân
al-kerîm out of his own understanding but learned from as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm the meanings which had been given by Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). I
fear much on account of the hadîth ash-sherîf, ‘He who derives meanings out of his own understanding
becomes a disbeliever.’ In fact, there were differences between the
rules derived from the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the
Hadîth ash-sharîf by those great scholars whose knowledge, goodness and taqwâ,
as declared in many hadîths, were very superior to those of their successors.
If it had been easy to derive rules, they all would have inferred the same.”
How could an ignoramus ever be right to say, “Allâhu ta’âlâ says so,” or
“Rasûlullah says so”? Allâhu ta’âlâ prohibited us to talk so. Even the ’ulamâ’
of tafsîr and the a’immat al-madhhâhib did not dare to say these words; after
explaining what they understood, they always said, “This is what I understand.
Allâhu ta’âlâ knows the truth of it.” Even as-Sahâbat al-kirâm used to have
difficulty in understanding the meaning of the Qur’ân
al-kerîm and asked Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). So it is clear how
ignorant and stupid a day-dream the religion reformer has been pursuing.
The statement, “Later scholars should be more advanced
than the earlier ones,” is true when we refer to experimental sciences.
Concerning the knowledge of Islam, however,
Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) hadîth sherîf is valid: “Each century will be worse than the one preceding it. This
will be the case until Doomsday.” This hadîth sharîf is valid also
when the scientists’ personality and their ways of using the science and its
products are in question. This principle is certainly true for the majority,
and there have been exceptions in every century. The religion reformer not only
mistakes experimental knowledge and religious knowledge for each other but also
supposes that science and scientist are the same. Science has surely made
advancements, but this does not mean that scientists also are advanced. Among
the later ones, those who are more retrogressive, more corrupt and baser than
the earlier ones are not less in number.
Arabic is necessary for understanding the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the Hadîth
ash-sherîf, yet Arabic alone is not enough. If it were enough, each of
the Arab Christians in Beirut would have consequenlty been an Islamic scholar
since among them there were those who had a deeper knowledge of Arabic than the
Egyptian religion reformers and those who were experts in Arabic, as well as
those who compiled dictionaries like Al-munjid.
None of them was able to understand the Qur’ân al-kerîm
or even to attain to the honour of being a Muslim. The Qur’ân
al-kerîm summons people to happiness, to îmân, to Islam. If they had
understood this invitation, they would have accepted it. Their disbelief does
not show that Allâhu ta’âlâ’s invitation is not clear or eloquent. The Qur’ân al-kerîm addresses as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, their
lightsome hearts, and unerring reason. It invites by means of the Quraish
language. It does not speak the Arabic taught in the Jâmi’ al-Azhar or Beirut.
As-Sahâbat al-kirâm matured in Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) suhba
(companionship, company) and attained to the perfection which could not be
reached by others among the Umma; yet their understanding (some parts of) the Qur’ân al-kerîm was different from one another’s.
There were also points they could not understand. Since those great people were
incapable, how will the case be with such people like us who understand slang
Arabic? Our a’immat al-madhâhib did not attempt to derive meanings from the Qur’ân al-kerîm, but, regarding themselves as
incapable of doing this, strived to learn, by asking as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, the
way Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) had explained the Qur’ân
al-kerîm. Also, they preferred what as-Sahâbat al-kirâm had understood
to what they themselves understood. Al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa
(d. 150/767, rahmatullâhi ’alaih) would prefer the
word of any Sahâbî to his own understanding. When he found no information
coming from Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) or from as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, he had
to employ ijtihâd. Islamic scholars in each century have trembled before the
greatness, superiority, wara’ and taqwâ of their predecessors and have held
fast to their words as proofs and documents. Islam is a religion of manners
(âdâb) and modesty (tawâdu’). An ignoramus behaves daringly and thinks of
himself as an Islamic scholar, but a scholar humbles himself. He who humbles
himself will be exalted by Allâhu ta’âlâ. Each of the chiefs of the seventy-two
groups, who will go to Hell as it was stated by Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm),
was a profound scholar, too; yet, they depended on their knowledge too much and
attempted to derive meanings from the Book and the Sunna. Therefore, they could
not attain to the honour of adapting themselves to as-Sahâbat al-kirâm and
deviated from the right path. They caused millions of Muslims to go to Hell.
The ’ulamâ’ of the four madhhabs did not use their deep knowledge in deriving
rules from the Qur’ân al-kerîm; they did not
dare to do this. They used it in understanding what Rasûlullah (’alaihi
’s-salâm) as-Sahâbat al-kirâm had said. Allâhu ta’âlâ does not command people
to derive rules from the Qur’ân al-kerîm. He
commands them to obey and accept the rules brought by His Messenger (’alaihi
’s-salâm) and as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. The religion reformers’ incapacity in
understanding this subtlety has driven them to perdition. Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
commands, “Obey My Messenger!” and “Adapt yourselves to My Messenger!” and
Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) command, “Hold fast
to the way of my compaions!” are the documents of our argument. If
following the a’immat al-madhâhib meant to abandon Allâhu ta’âlâ and His
Messenger (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and to become a slave of another slave, following
as-Sahâbât al-kirâm would have meant the same. Since it was not so, Rasûlullah
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) commanded it. He commanded people to believe briefly and to
perform ’ibâda as much as they saw him do. He did not even suggest that they
should know the proofs.[1] Allâhu
ta’âlâ disapproves of disbelievers imitating their parents, and He commands
them to give up disbelief and to have belief. He does not disapprove of
imitating His Messenger (’alaihi ’s-salâm), but commands it. And
[1] Hadrat al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî explained this in detail in his work Kimyâ’ As-sa’âda.
Rasûlullah
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) commands us to imitate his companions. It is bad to follow
the wicked, but this should not prevent us from following the good people. As
explained above, if it were easy to understand the documents of the part
pertaining to îmân, the Christian Arabs in Beirut would necessarily have îmân
easily. Since it was not easy to understand the documents of the principles
that are to be believed, we were ordered to have îmân without the need to
understand the documents, and those who believed in this manner were called “Mu’minûn” (Believers, Muslims). If Allâhu ta’âlâ
had made Muslims liable also for learning and understanding the documents of
the rules concerning ’ibâdât, His Messenger (’alaihi ’s-salâm), too, would have
suggested it. Indeed, as explained above, he never did.
By saying that prophets
(’alaihimu ’s-salâm) never erred but mujtahids might have made mistakes, he
supposes that the rules revealed by mujtahids are different from those revealed
by the Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm). On the
contrary, a mujtahid or an imâm al-madhhab was a great ’âlim who spent his
whole life studying day and night, searching and finding out the rules that had
been conveyed by the Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm)
and by as-Sahâbat al-kirâm and who transmitted them to Muslims. No mujtahid
ever added anything to any kind of ’ibâdât. They said unanimously that it was a
bid’a and a great sin. There cannot be another slander as ugly and loathsome as
accusing the mujtahids of something which they themselves prohibited. It is
crass ignorance and idiocy to say that mujtahids expanded the religion. It is
answerable in no way but with a a sneer. The religion does not expand, but the
number of cases increases. It is a great service to Islam and a very valuable
’ibâda to apply Islam to those cases which have appeared and developed during
the course of time. And this has been and is still being the lot of the
mujaddid imâms.
A mujaddid does not have to be a mujtahid mutlaq. It is
true that the four a’immat al-madhâhib prohibited taqlîd. But they prohibited
it for those scholars who were educated among their disciples and who had
reached the grade of ijtihâd. It is never permissible for any mujtahid to
follow another mujtahid. This rule will be valid till Doomsday. But it does not
apply to the ignoramuses and religion reformers who think of themselves as
mujtahids. If a mouse thinks of itself as a lion and then meets a cat, it will
realize that it has been wrong. But its mistake will cost it its life.
“Who demoted the religion into this state of theoretical
philosophy are the later Islamic scholars. They put some definitions and
limitations. They divided it into sections. In fact, there were those who said
that becoming a scholar of fiqh required twenty years of study. However, it had
taken that much time to establish all the branches or the rules of the
religion. It had not taken even two years to establish the fiqh. I want modern
Muslims to be like the Muslims of the time of the Four Caliphs. Therefore, it
is the duty of every Muslim to perform the ’ibâdât on which there has been
unanimity. It is not necessary to perform the controversial ones even if they
were said to be fard. On such matters, you should act upon your studying its
evidences or act in accord with a narration (qawl), if you prefer this
narration because it suits your case. But you should not blame others for not
doing as you do. It is not proper to perform salât behind different imâms
belonging to different madhhabs in the same mosque at the same time. In short,
we should do what as-Sahâba did, and we should not do what they did not do. We
should exercise an option in doing controversial matters. We should employ
qiyâs on what as-Sahâba did not explain. On controversial matters everybody
should act in accordance with the hadîths which they believe to be sahîh.”
He attacks Islamic scholars with the accusation that they
turned Islam into philosophy by dividing it and introduced definitions and
limitations into it. Yet the fact is that, the scholars of kalâm had nothing to
do with philosophy, for, they were much higher than philosophers. However,
during the time of the Umayyads, Muslims who spread over the three continents
met various groups of non-Muslims, and also such groups as the Khawârij and the
Mu’tazila appeared, who tried to mislead the new Muslims. The scholars of Ahl
as-Sunna had to protect Muslims’ faith and to answer various religions,
philosophers and zindîqs. Preparing answers refuting their philosophy as they
should deserve, they promulgated the knowledge of kalâm far and wide, thus
preventing the youth from being deceived. While it is an obligation for us to
praise them for their glorious and honourable services and to thank them and
invoke blessings on them, does it become a Muslim to attempt to speak ill of
them for this reason? Because as-Sahâbat al-kirâm were very wise and
intelligent and had such a guide as Rasûlullah
(’alaihi ’s-salâm), the Islamic religion was established in twenty years. After
the second century of Islam, the Muslims who had then spread over the three
continents did not have either of these advantages. The time a disciple would
need to learn from his master became longer. Yet, it was said by the scholars
that it was still possible to learn in a short time if the master would be
tender and skillful and the disciple intelligent and diligent, and history
books reveal that there came those who could fulfil these conditions. In
addition, the darkness of bid’as and sins blackened the hearts and weakened the
memories and, consequently, caused the duration of education to become longer.
Even Hadrat al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î complained to his master Wakî’ about the
weakness of his memory. The answer he was given as stated in the following
distich reveals this fact:
“Shakawtul Wakî’a min sû-i hýfzî,
Fa-awsânî ilâ tark-il ma’âsî.”[1]
The religion reformer says, on the one hand, that every
Muslim should perform the ’ibâdât which have been declared unanimously and, on
the other hand, that he may not perform the controversial ones or he may
perform them in accordance with any madhhab he likes, that is, he may unify or
mix the madhhabs. His words contradict each other, for, it was declared
unanimously that it was wrong to mix the madhhabs. Mixing the madhhabs is
disobedience to this unanimous declaration. Therefore, the religion reformer’s
worship will not be correct and acceptable according to himself, either. Also,
it is incorrect to say that as-Sahâbat al-kirâm did not do the controversial
matters and that there would not have been any controversial ones if they had
done them; for, there were also those matters on which there was disagreement
because the way as-Sahâbat al-kirâm had done them was not understood. Moreover,
it is incompatible with the unanimous declaration of the scholars to say that
one should lay imâm al-madhhab’s words aside and follow one’s own interpretation
of a Hadîth ash-sherîf, which causes one to
think of oneself as a mujtahid superior to imâm al-madhhab, an attribute
peculiar to the Devil.
[1] “I complained to Wakî’ of my bad memory. He recommended me to cease from sinning.”
“The men of taqlîd are the greatest enemies of the lights
of thinking, research and documenting, which make for the indispensable part of
the natural disposition created [in man] by Allah.”
Such an open lie and slander is very puzzling, indeed.
Which faqîh prohibited thinking, researching and looking for documentary
evidence? Which Muslim is hostile against these? He should have given an
example. Which of his lies or slanders from the beginning of his book has he
documented so that he would document his one now? It is the religion reformer’s
very self which is hostile against documentation. It would be illogical to ask
such a person, who puts forward what he has planned with his short sight and
false reasoning in the name of religious knowledge, to think or to furnish
proofs. Though it would be proper to think of the saying, “Silence is the best
answer to be given to an idiot,” and to hold one’s tongue, a brief answer is
necessary to protect young brains against the harms of such a person: All the
’ulamâ’ of fiqh have said that it is not necessary for a muqallid to look for
documentary evidences, for, the new Muslims among the Tâbi’ûn used to do
everything by asking as-Sahâbat al-kirâm, never demanding any proofs. Moreover
there has been no scholar who prohibited searching for proofs. For this reason,
all the a’immat al-madhhâhib wrote documents at full length and made it easy
for those who wanted to see the documents.
“The ignorant, as the Muslims of the first century did,
shall ask any matter they do not know from a person they trust. They shall ask
about an âyat or hadîth which is related to it, learn its meaning, and act in
accordance with it.”
Good Gracious! How deep a learning! What reasoning! It was
true that as-Sahâbat al-kirâm used to do so, but they all had become higher
than the a’immat al-madhhâhib by being matured in the suhba of Rasûlullah
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam). They were praised and glorified in the hadîth ash-sherîf, “My
companions are like the stars in the sky. You will attain to the right path if
you follow any of them!” They all could understand the Divine
Meaning. In case of a matter not stated clearly in the Book or in the Sunna,
they used to search through âyats and hadîths for a documentary solution,
employ ijtihâd and draw a conclusion. It was not necessary or permissible for
them to follow
(taqlîd) one another. Our a’immat al-madhâhib also
did as as-Sahâbat al-kirâm had done. Like them, they searched for and found out
evidences and drew conclusions from them. Thus, they parted into madhhabs in
respect of ’ibâdât. In this way, they carried out Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi
’s-salâm) command, for, he had declared, “Adapt
yourselves to my companions!” Since the new Muslims among the
Tâbi’ûn did not ask as-Sahâbat al-kirâm for documentary evidences, it is not
necessary for the ignorant like us to look for the proofs of the a’immat
al-madhâhib. We learn the commands of Allâhu ta’âlâ by reading the books
written by the a’immat al-madhâhib. These books are the explanations of the Qur’ân al-kerîm. See this man with a religious post
who likens an ignorant village shepherd to a Sahâbî and recommends him to go to
town frequently, look for âyats and hadîths, interpret them by himself and
employ ijtihâd! While there is the facility of following an imâm al-madhhab, he
gets the poor man into such difficulties!
“The usûl scholars’ deducing the necessity of the taqlîd
from the âyat, ‘If you do not know, ask those who
know!’ is a fruitless and unsound deduction and reasoning. The âyat
should not be commanding the taqlîd to everybody since the taqlîd was not
permissible in the events or for the person that caused the âyat’s revelation.
In this âyat, Allâhu ta’âlâ commanded the polytheist Arabs to ask the Ahl
al-kitâb (Believers in Holy Books) if prophets
were angels or human beings. Why should this question be taqlîd while it does
not mean to act in accordance with someone else’s opinion or ijtihâd without
evidences? Furthermore, this matter pertains to belief. You, too, admit the
fact that taqlîd is not permissible in this respect. The Qur’ân prophesies that
on the Day of Resurrection the chiefs of the disbelievers will run away from
those who followed them. Isn’t this information a sign of the fact that those
who follow the persons whom Allah has not ordered us to follow will not be
excused by Allah? Because Muslims considered some people as witnesses and
turned away from the Qur’ân, we suffered disasters. The imâms whom they
followed will run away from them on the Day of Resurrection, for, the great
imâms and mujtahids prohibited taqlîd. You have been accustomed to taking the
words of human beings, not the words of Allah and the
After writing these through the mouth of the religion
reformer, Rashîd Ridâ, in order to deceive his readers, writes that the
preacher likes the words of the religion reformer, that he has been wrong to
think of religion reformers as ignorant, and that now he appreciates the
religion reformer after seeing that he is so well learned.
Our Prophet (sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam) deduced from this âyat that the taqlîd of a mujtahid was
necessary when carrying out every kind of action or ’ibâda. And as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm taught the new Muslims among the Tâbi’ûn only how to carry out the
’ibâdât the way they themselves had learned from Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu
’alaihi wa sallam). They did not command them to search for proofs. They deemed
it sufficient for them to imitate without knowing proofs. Our a’immat al-madhâhib,
who followed in the footsteps of the as-Sahâbat al-kirâm in everything they
did, followed them in this respect, too. There is no difference between saying
that the a’immat al-madhâhib prohibited taqlîd and saying that they deviated
from the path of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. It was true that the as-Sahâbat al-kirâm
and the a’immat al-madhâhib looked for documentary evidences, and they did not
follow others’ ijtihâd. But they permitted the non-mujtahids to follow
mujtahids. The reformer’s claim that the âyat did not command disbelievers to
practise taqlîd is to smother the matter in sophistry. Islamic scholars have
not said that disbelievers were commanded to practise taqlîd; why, then, should
the religion reformer be acknowledged to be right for these words of his?
Allâhu ta’âlâ commanded those who did not know to ask from those who knew. And
Islamic scholars, by inferencing from the âyat, have said that Muslims should
ask those who know about how to do what they are going to do. This is the whole
subject. There is no such thing as taqlîd or searching for evidences here. The
religion reformer, inserting these into the matter, endeavours to prove himself
right. It is a different subject to follow an ’âlim without seeing the
documentary evidences in something which one will do. And this different
subject automatically originates from the former subject: asking someone who
knows about the things that should be done or that should not be done, and
doing as one learns from him, means to follow (taqlîd)
him. On the other hand, the case is not so with the imitation concerning îmân.
Since îmân does not settle in the heart right after asking and learning the
facts to be believed, it is not called the taqlîd. After
learning îmân, one thinks over, approves and admits
it, and then it gets established in his heart. This is the îmân which Islam
requires. The unconsidered îmân that is formed after learning without thinking
or approving is imitative and without proof. Such is the case with the
disbelievers who become disbelievers by imitating their parents. Islam requires
people to have îmân by thinking it over, seeing its evidences and deciding for
themselves. Disbelievers’ disbelief is not formed by themselves; it has been
adopted from their parents and it has become their own quality. As it is seen,
taqlîd has no connection with îmân. Because taqlîd is not permissible in îmân,
those who have been followed in this respect will run away on the Day of
Resurrection from those who have followed them. Because taqlîd in ’ibâdât is a
requirement of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s command, both those who teach and those who
learn will go to Paradise.
The religion reformer’s saying that Muslims considered
some people as witnesses and turned away from the Qur’ân
al-kerîm is a very base and disgusting demeaning. It means to display
Muslims as disbelievers. Since his statement is mendacious and slanderous, and
since he calls Muslims disbelievers, he himself becomes a disbeliever.
Muslims do not follow the a’immat al-madhâhib themselves.
Learning from them what Allâhu ta’âlâ and the Prophet
(’alaihi ’s-salâm) meant, they cling to the commands of Allâhu ta’âlâ and
Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Mujtahids themselves are each a medium, a
transmitter. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares, “Look for a
medium to attain to My Love!” Muslims, following Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
command, make use of the a’immat al-madhâhib as mediums. To follow the a’immat
al-madhâhib, to adapt oneself to them does not mean to do their personal
commands, but it means to follow what they conveyed from the Book and the
Sunna.
How could the discordant matters among the four madhhabs
ever be abandoned? It is impossible. One of the discordant opinions on a matter
certainly coincides with Allâhu ta’âlâ’s command. For example, bleeding breaks
a wudû’ (ritual ablution) according to the Hanafî madhhab, but it does not
according to the Shâfi’î madhhab. One of these inferences is, for sure, what
Allâhu ta’âlâ meant. We should always do one of them and say that it is what He
meant. The one who does what Allâhu ta’âlâ meant hits the right way and wins.
The Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) declared that the
mujtahid who could not understand exactly what Allâhu ta’âlâ meant would also
be given thawâb. During the time of our
master Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm), there were
many such matters of ijtihâd. There are many hadîths stating that the mujtahid
who could not hit the right way will also be given thawâb. The important thing
here is that this thawâb is meant for mujtahids only. According to the above
âyat, which is in Sûrat an-Nahl, those who follow mujtahids will be given that
much thawâb, too. Religion reformers who do not follow mujtahids will not be
given this thawâb. They do not obey Allâhu ta’âlâ’s command. They will go to
Hell. The hadîth ash-sherîf, “None of the ’ibâdât of a holder of bid’a is acceptable,”
is the proof of our argument.
Some scholars of usûl al-fiqh said, “Following a mujtahid
requires one’s trust and belief in his knowledge; the âyat, ‘Ask those who know,’
reveals this fact. A person who follows a mujtahid in one matter and follows
another mujtahid in another matter will not have believed or trusted in the
former mujtahid. Nor will his performance of the former matter be acceptable.
If he says that he believes and trusts in both of them, his words are not
believable.”[1] As in
many respects, Rashîd Ridâ’s attitude and conduct have contradicted his words
in this respect, too. So says the poet:
“Action is man’s mirror, words don’t ever count;
In his work appears the extent of his mind.”
“The person whom I will advise should not be attached to a
heretical group, nor should he have dived into discordant subjects. In ’ibâdât,
dwell upon the matters on which there has been agreement. Don’t deal with the
discordant matters. On a discordant matter, do the prudent solution! Those
[’ulamâ’] who did not say that it was fard said that it was mustahab. At times
when it is difficult to do what is prudent employ ijtihâd yourself, that is, do
the way of the mujtahid that you think is superior. Follow the ’âlim whom you
have decided to be superior and more hitting in his point of view! If that
exalted person hit the right way in his opinion and ijtihâd or in the
conclusion and decision which he deduced, there shall be two rewards, two
thawâbs
[1] See for detail the passage translated from Al-mîzân al-kubra below, p. 82.
for him. As a matter of fact, Rasûlullah
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) declared that if a person employed ijtihâd and
hit the right way he would win two prizes, and if he erred he would win one
prize. And Allâhu ta’âlâ referred the job to those who are capable of ijtihâd.
The eighty-third âyat of the Sûrat an-Nisâ’ declares, ‘Those who are capable of inferring conclusion from them know
the matter.’ Hadrat Prophet
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) explained in a hadîth to Ma’âdh that he liked
and approved the ijtihâd of those who were capable of doing it. Ma’âdh ibn
Jabal’s saying, ‘If I cannot find in the Book or the Sunna, I judge according
to my own opinion and employ ijtihâd,’ took place before Hadrat Prophet’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) commanding
and permitting ijtihâd. Both mujtahids and those who follow them are excusable.
Some of them have hit the right way, the Divine Meaning, while others have won
one out of the two rewards. Since it is not known who has hit the right way,
they are not obstinate for fanatical against one another. Only, each of them
thinks that he has hit the right way. I admit that it is wrong for everybody to
draw rules through his own opinion and qiyâs. If you abandon Bâtinism, which
you have been imitating blindly, I can teach you the knowledge in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. Which would you prefer, learning from
me or your Bâtinî comrades?”
He adds that the preacher, upon hearing this, says,
“Now we see that al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî admits taqlîd and
considers it necessary for all people.”
These words of al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî as reported by the
religion reformer shows clearly that he agreed with what the ’ulamâ’ of Ahl
as-Sunna and a’immat al-madhâhib said unanimously. There is no need to explain
the above-quoted words of the great imâm of Ahl as-Sunna (rahmatullâhi ’alaihim
ajma’în). Our purpose, too, is to tell our brothers-in-Islam what Hadrat Imâm
said. Al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî’s words rebut the religion reformer’s claims by the
roots. They show that taqlîd is compatible with Islam.
“I have already explained my views on how Muslims will
slip out of the obscurities of discordance, the cause and virus resposible for
the disease which they caught. My opinion is in agreement with that of the
great Islamic scholar al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî. He says that it will be enough
for them [Muslims] to believe in the Qur’ân al-kerîm only, in addition to doing what
Muslims have heretofore agreed on. What damages Islam is the parting of Muslims
into groups and each group’s following only the imâm which they prefer and
those scholars who follow him, and being bigoted against those who follow other
mujtahid imâms. This breaking into groups may go as far as abandoning the Book
and the Sunna. I have shown more facility in these sort of matters. I have
given the liable person the freedom to accept whichever point of view he
wishes, provided he will not follow the desires of the nafs and he will be as
cautious as he can. But, al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî, though deeming it permissible to
abandon these matters completely, puts a limit to the field of activity for
those who want to follow religious practices. He almost compels them to employ
ijtihâd.”
The religion reformer’s greatest error is his confusing
the breaking of Muslims into groups in i’tiqâd (belief) with the parting of Ahl
as-Sunna into madhhabs. He speaks ill of the four madhhabs as he does of the
groups of bid’a and blemishes Muslims as if they have dissented from the Book
and the Sunna. All the seventy-two groups who have deviated in i’tiqâd are
certainly heretical. It is stated in a hadîth sherîf that they will all go to
Hell. Yet, if not hostility against Islam, what else may his attacking the four
a’immat al-madhâhib of Ahl as-Sunna be, who were praised in the Hadîth ash-sherîf and who won Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Love and
Approval because they obeyed Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm)? Such an enemy of
Islam who appears as a man of religious ranking is called a zindîq. Our religion declares that zindîqs and
munâfiqs are worse and more harmful than the non-Muslims with or without a
Book. The religion reformer does not feel shame for changing al-Imâm
al-Ghazâlî’s words quoted in the previous article and adapting them to his
personal point of view. Deeming himself an ’âlim and a mujtahid like Hadrat
al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî, he attempts to direct Islam as he wishes. He is not aware that
this stupid behaviour of his is worse than that of the seventy-two groups he
blames.
“It is impossible to admit the claim that there was an
ijmâ’ (unanimity) on the decision that the talfîq (unification, combination) of
the madhâhib was wrong.
There are different opinions on this subject. How
could the author of Durr al-muhtâr ever
say this, which was said by none of the imâms of his own madhhab, despite the
fact that his own madhhab is the combination of the ijtihâds of the three
imâms. Also, we understand from Ibn Humâm that it is not true that the Hanafîs
do not admit talfîq. Moreover, there are quite a lot of fatwâs issued in unity
with more than one madhhab. One of the most well-known of them is about ‘one’s
donating one’s movables to oneself,’ which has been deemed permissible by
unifying the ijtihâds of Imâm Abû Yûsuf and Imâm Muhammad. Ibn ’Âbidîn’s saying
that it would not be unification of the madhhabs to unify the ijtihâds of the
scholars belonging to the same madhhab is an arbitrary idea which a wise person
could not say. No person, not even a muqallid, will admit the two contradictory
opinions at the same time. I, too, admit the fact that the authors of fiqh
books could not say anything from themselves, for a muqallid does not have the
knowledge to enable him to assert something from himself. What he is to do is
to convey somebody else’s words. As a matter of fact, he conveyed this from
’Allâma Qâsim, who had conveyed it from Tawfiq
al-hukkâm. Somebody, not knowing the fact that there is disagreement
on the matter and that there are various points of view, just says that there
is ijmâ’, and others convey this. It is incorrect to think that truth will
always be on the side of the majority. ‘No matter
how heartily you wish, the majority of the people will still not believe you,’
declares Sûra Yûsuf.”
In this passage, the religion reformer clearly reveals his
ignorance and the fact that he is an enemy of the Ahl as-Sunna. His saying that
the Hanafî madhhab is the unification of the ijtihâds of the three imâms shows
that he knows nothing of ’ilm al-usûl al-fiqh. The evidences which he puts
forward, thinking with his short sight that they are proofs, are quite
irrelevant. We shall say shortly that the methods (usûl) and principles
(qawâ’id) of the Hanafî madhhab were established by al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa
(rahmatullâhi ’alaih). Imâm Abû Yûsuf (d. 182/798) and Imâm Muhammad
ash-Shaibânî (d. 189/804) were al-Imâm al-a’zam’s disciples. Educating and
training them for many years like hundreds of his other disciples, he enabled
them to reach the grade of ijtihâd. These two and many other mujtahids who were
their friends measured what they had learned from their master
with the methods and principles they had learned
again from their master, and they gave different fatwâs on the new cases they
encountered. Since the fatwâs of these two imâms have not been unified in the
Hanafî madhhab, there is no question of the talfîq of them. In the Hanafî
madhhab, al-Imâm al-a’zam’s words should be acted upon. In those matters on
which he has no ijtihâd, Imâm Abû Yûsuf’s ijtihâd is to be acted upon. If this
cannot be found, either, Imâm Muhammad’s ijtihâd should be acted upon. Only in
indispensable (darûra) situations it is permissible to change this succession
or to unify the two. For example, concerning the liability to sacrifice sheep
during the ’Iyd of Qurbân[1] (’Îd
al-adhâ), a person who cannot meet his needs and debts with the rents he gets
is considered poor according to Imâm Muhammad, while, according to the
Shaikh’ain (al-Imâm al-a’zam and Imâm Abû Yûsuf), he is considered rich. If
such a person does not sacrifice a sheep or give the fitra,[2] he will
escape the sin according to Imâm Muhammad. If he gives the fitra and sacrifices
a sheep, he will get the thawâb of a wâjib according to the Shaikh’ain. He who
does something which is not wâjib for him will get only the thawâb of a
supererogatory (nâfila) ’ibâda, but not the thawâb of a wâjib. The thawâb of a
wâjib is much greater than this. As it is seen, the difference in ijtihâds is
Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Mercy upon Muslims. It is not talfîq to unite the ijtihâds of
the imâms belonging to one madhhab. It does not show that talfîq is
permissible. Talfîq is to unite two or
more of the four madhhabs. Also, his reference to Ibn Humâm is a lie, since Ibn
Humâm wrote in his book Tahrîr, “When
imitating another madhhab, one should not do anything which is wrong according
to either of the two madhhabs he is following. If a person, by following the
Shâfi’î madhhab, does not rub his limbs with his hands while performing a wudû’
(ritual ablution), and if he touches a woman [he is/was permitted to marry with
an Islamic nikâh] thinking that his ritual ablution will not break with this
touch according to the Mâlikî madhhab, the salât which he performs with this
ablution will be invalid (bâtil) according to both madhhabs.” The book Khulâsat at-tahqîq puts forth these words of Ibn
Humâm as an evidence for proving the fact that it is not permissible to unify
madhhabs. The enemy of Islam who comes forth as a man with religious duties
[1] The tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth days of the month of Zu’lhijja. Please see the fourth chapter of Endless Bliss, V.
[2] A kind
of alms, explained in the third chapter of Endless Bliss, V.
changes
Ibn Humâm’s words in order to deceive Muslims, and thus abominably slanders
this great imâm. Moreover, it was Shaikh Qâsim, Ibn Humâm’s disciple, who wrote
that talfîq was not acceptable and that there was even ijmâ’ on it. Shaikh
Qâsim wrote about this ijmâ’, which he learned from his master, Ibn Humâm, in
his book At-tas’hîh, which is a commentary
on Al-Qudûrî.
It is written also in ad-Durar
that it will not be against the Hanafî madhhab for a Hanafî muftî to issue a
fatwa in accordance with the ijtihâd of Imâm Abû Yûsuf or Imâm Muhammad
ash-Shaibânî, since both the imâms told that each of their ijtihâds disagreeing
with al-Imâm al-a’zam was a report which they had heard from al-Imâm al-a’zam.
For this reason, Ibn ’Âbidîn wrote in the marginalia of Waqf al-manqûl, “The difficulty stated in the
book Naf’ al-wâsâ’il by al-Imâm
at-Tarsûsî and in the fatwâs of ’Allâma Ibn ash-Shalbî has been eradicated. It
is permissible according to Imâm Abû Yûsuf and not permissible according to
Imâm Muhammad for a person to donate something to himself,
while the donation of something movable
is not permissible according to Imâm Abû Yûsuf but permissible according to
Imâm Muhammad. Since neither of the two imâms had said that it would be
permissible for a person to donate something movable
to himself, the ijtihâds of both imâms
were brought together and a fatwa was issued stating that this was also
permissible. And this is the subject in relation to which at-Tarsûsî wrote in
his book Munyat al-muftî as “Hukmu
mulaffaq jâ’izun.’[1]
Further, it was the unification of (different) madhhabs which was prohibited
unanimously. In my book Al-’uqûd ad-durriyya fî
tankîhi ’l-Hâmidiyya, I explained this thoroughly.” Also, the
permission to donate money by bringing together the ijtihâds of Imâm Abû Yûsuf
and Imâm Zufar does not show that the unification of ijtihâds of different madhhabs
is permissible, since both the Imâms were in the Hanafî madhhab. By distorting
these clear statements of fiqh books shamelesly without fearing Allâhu ta’âlâ,
the religion reformer attempts both to deceive the youth and to defame the most
valuable fiqh books, such as Durr al-mukhtâr
and Radd al-muhtâr, and thus to demolish
Ahl as-sunna from within. This base scheme clearly reveals the fact that Rashîd
Ridâ
[1] “The unifier’s conclusion is justifiable,” by which “The unification of ijtihâds [of mujtahids belonging to the same madhhab] is permissible,”
is not a
man of religious authority, but an enemy of Islam disguised as a man of
religious authority, that is, a zindîq.
Because the scholars of fiqh did not state the rules of
Islam out of their own opinions or intellects but conveyed the knowledge coming
from as-Sahâbât al-kirâm, the reformer abases himself so far as to stigmatize
the ’ulamâ’ as ignoramuses. But the ignoramuses are these very religion
reformers who do not know this knowledge or the cases to which it is to be
applied and who lie. They are vulgarly ignorant. Because of their ignorance,
which is peculiar to a person who is unaware of his ignorance, they think they
know something, feeling no shame at spreading their mendacious and corrupt
words under the name of knowledge. The hadîth
ash-sherîf, “Al-hayâ’u min al’îmân,”
(Modesty originates from îmân) which is written in the Sahîh of Muslim, also shows the fact that the
enemies of Islam do not have a sense of shame. The scholars of fiqh have
written the matters on which there was ijmâ’a as well as the discordant ones.
Those who know the deep science of fiqh will distinguish them from one another.
The ignorant reformers think that the scholars of fiqh were like themselves.
The Arabic saying, “Al-kalâmu sifât al-mutakallim,” (One’s words reveal who he
is) points to the inner purpose of these zindîqs.
The scholars of fiqh, according to him, have been saying
that there was ijmâ’ without knowing the matter. This exalted religion, Islam,
to him, has been a plaything throughout the centuries in the hands of ignorant
people, and these zindîqs will now restore Islam on to its rails. He, too, says
that the person who denies the unanimity of the ’ulamâ’ becomes a disbeliever.
If the ’ulamâ’ of Islam did not know or find out ijmâ’, whence will he himself
find it? No need to be surprised by him: “Al-jâhilu jasûrun,” (An ignoramus
behaves daringly!) He always says what he fabricates. What else would be easier
for him, while it is a mere nothing for him to write out hundreds of books full
of lies and slanders like this book of his? There is no longer any need to look
for the putrid asses prophesied in, “As Doomsday
draws near, men of religious post will be more rotten, more putrid than
putrefied donkey flesh,” the hadîth
ash-sherîf of our master, the Prophet
(’alaihi ’s-salâm), whose each word was full of wisdom; they show themselves.
Their venomous, noisome smell has been spreading from Egypt to all over the
entire world. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect our young men of religious post from
being infected with these fatal disease germs! May He deign to protect us all
against the
evils of these parvenus! May He not separate us
from the right path of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna, who guided us to
Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) path and who were declared to be his
inheritors! If those blessed men of Allâhu ta’âlâ had not written the books of
fiqh and ’ilm al-hâl, we would have perished by being clawed by these parvenu
zindîqs, believing their false words. May thousands of salâms and benedictions
be on the blessed souls of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna, who have protected us
against disbelief and bid’a.
By saying that truth will not always be on the side of the
majority, he denies the hadîth ash-sherîf, “My umma do not agree on heresy.” The scholars of
Ahl as-Sunna have held fast to ijmâ’ and to the majority because it was
commanded by Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). A hadîth sherîf, which is written
in the section “Fitan” of the Sahîh of
al-Bukhârî, declares, “He who deviates from the
community as far as a span and dies in that state will have died with the death
of jâhiliyya.[1] ” This
hadîth sharîf explains the 114th âyat of the sûrat an-Nisâ’. Another
hadîth
sherîf, written after the above one in the Sahîh of
al-Bukhârî, declares, “Allâhu ta’âlâ, to take
knowledge away from you, will take away the ’ulamâ’ who live up to their
knowledge. The ignorant will remain. By answering religious questions out of
their own reason, they will cause Muslims to deviate from the right path.”
This hadîth sherîf calls attention to the harm of religion reformers who blame
Ahl as-Sunna by saying that it is imitation to convey the words of the ’ulamâ’
and who demolish the religion from the inside with their short reasonings and
addle heads.[2] Another hadîth sherîf, which is
quoted at the section about “ ’Ilm” in the Sahîh
of al-Bukhârî, declares, “One of the foreshadows of
Doomsday is that knowledge will vanish; the ignoramuses of religion will
increase in number; there will be more of those who have alcoholic drinks and
who commit fornication.” Religion reformers’ attempts to annihilate
Ahl as-Sunna and coming forward as men of religious post reveal the fact that
this hadîth sherîf has proved one of the miracles that informed about what
would happen in the future.
[1] “nescience” or “disbelief” of the pre-Islamic era.
[2] This hadîth is written more thoroughly at the beginning of the Sahîh of al-Imâm al-Muhammad ibn Ismâ’il al-Bukhârî, who was born in 194 (809) and passed away in Samarkand in 256 (869).
“Taqlîd is a result of ijtihâd. It does not exist where
there is no ijtihâd. It is not necessary for those who have done completely all
the matters that had been agreed on to do the discordant ’ibâdât. They are
permitted to give up all of them. Would it be conscientious and judicious to
follow (taqlîd) someone whom one does not know? Getting a fatwâ is not taqlîd,
but it is something like communication (naql) and narration (riwâya). The
superiority looked for in a mujtahid whose opinion is to be followed or whose
ijtihâd is to be adopted is not like the superiority which is in question among
the Caliphs or other Sahâbîs. That is, it is not a superiority in Allâhu
ta’âlâ’s view. It is [with respect to] the strength of [his] faculty of
judging, knowledge, research and insight. He who comes later may be superior.
Among the imâms, al-Imâm ash-shâfi’î was the strongest. When I cannot find
documentary evidences, I follow the madhhab whose evidences I deem superior.
That is, I become both a mujtahid and a muqallid. Thus, I get rid of being
solely a muqallid. Today’s Muslims know neither a madhhab nor îmân. Religious
knowledge which the majority have is only that Allah is in heaven and that the Prophet ascended to heaven and saw Allah.”
The statements of Rashîd Ridâ are again the expression of
his personal opinions. Since he is not an Islamic scholar — as a matter of
fact, his statements that have been quoted before have shown the kind of way he
has been following — these hastily collected statements are not worth
answering. Yet, as required by the proverb, “The fly is small, but it
nauseates,” it will be suitable to write a few words in order to protect the
youth against his harm.
It is incorrect to say that taqlîd does not exist in the
case when there is no ijtihâd; Allâhu ta’âlâ declared, “Obey My Messenger!” and following this command,
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm (’alaihimu ’r-ridwân) did whatever Rasûlulah (’alaihi
’s-salâm) told them to do, and they even threw themselves into death. They did
not look for any evidences or proofs. They followed him unconditionally. His
commands were revealed through wahy and were not mixed with ijtihâd. But in
those matters that would be done through ijtihâd, as-Sahâbat al-kirâm employed
ijtihad and told him what their ijtihâds were. Sometimes their ijtihâds
disagreed with that of Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Then the wahî would come
to confirm the correct ijtihâd. Sometimes the wahy would be in
agreement with the ijtihâd of a Sahâbî. After
Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) death, as-Sahâbat al-kirâm did not follow one
another. Hence, it was understood that it was not permissible for a mujtahid to
follow another mujtahid; and a muqallid had to follow a mujtahid in all
matters, but he did not have to search, find out or learn the unanimous and
discordant matters among the thousands of matters. If he had had to do so, the
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm would have commanded the Tâbi’ûn to do so. Compelling
Muslims to do so would have caused difficulties for the Ummat al-Muhammadiyya.
Our religion wants us not to cause difficulties, but to provide facilities.
In the view of the religion reformer, each Muslim shall
learn and distinguish the unanimous ones and the discordant ones among
thousands of matters, do the unanimous ones, go into the discordant ones
carefully, look for and find out their documentary evidences and estimate the
most dependable evidence, and then it will be up to his wish to do it or not.
What kind of reasoning or suggestion is this? He himself writes the fact that
Muslims know nothing and that they are as ignorant as to say that Allâhu ta’âlâ
is in heaven. Which is more suitable, to teach such people a madhhab, or to
heap these difficulties before them. A wise and reasonable person, i.e., a
person who speaks for the sake of Allâhu ta’âlâ and Islam, will certainly
answer this immediately. But, as it has been understood from many of his words
from the beginning of his book to the end, what the religion reformer intends
is not to serve Muslims and Islam, but to frighten Muslims, to alienate them
from Islam and to demolish Islam from the inside. He is answerable in no way,
but saying, “Shut up, you zindîq! You cannot deceive Muslims!”
According to him, in inquiring about others’ opinion and
asking about their ijtihâd, as-Sahâbat al-kirâm would take into consideration
their superiority in Allâhu ta’âlâ’s view, but would not look at their faculty
of judging, knowledge or research. This, again, is one of his factious,
subversive ideas. He attempts to blemish as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. He means that
they did not make use of criteria or knowledge. The Four Caliphs would ask
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm “Which of you knows this?” and would learn from the one who
knew, for, all as-Sahâbat al-kirâm were superior in Allâhu ta’âlâ’s view. They
did not ask about the difference in their superiorities, but their knowledge
and opinions. So did the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna. In everything they did they
followed in the footsteps of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm.
It is not a guilt to believe that al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î was
the highest of the imâms. But he himself said that al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa
was higher.[1]
Religion reformers, in order to demolish the four madhhabs
and thus to demolish Ahl as-Sunna, whereby to demolish Islam, dwell very much
upon the talfîq (unification) of the
madhhabs, that is, gathering the facilities and discarding the rest. In all
their books, they put forward — it can be seen from the examples which they
give of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna — that the ijtihâds of the three îmâms in
the Hanafî madhhab have been unified or the ijtihâds of different madhhabs have
been unified when there was difficulty.
We, too, say that both the cases are permissible. As explained in detail in the
preceding article, the ijtihâds of imâms belonging to a madhhab mean the
ijtihâd of the imâm who founded that madhhab. To unify them does not mean to go
out of the imâm al-madhhab’s ijtihâd. Religion reformers, in a clever way with
their own logic, write the things that are permissible and, by putting them
forward, want to have their own corrupt and destructive thoughts be accepted as
faith and ’ibâdât.
“I do not admit qiyâs in ’ibâdât. Every Muslim who looks
at the documentary evidences and admits the opinions accordingly is a mujtahid,
too. Also those scholars who were attached to maddhabs have disagreed with them
in some matters. Al-Baghawî, al-Awzâ’î and al-Ghazâlî disagreed with their îmâm
though they were in the Shâfi’î madhhab, and az-Zamakhsharî disagreed with Abû
Hanîfa. After the Four Caliphs began the time of sovereign rulers; religious
teachings were corrupted.”
According to the religion reformer, there is no qiyâs in
Islam; all Muslims are mujtahids; by observing the documentary evidences of
discordant matters, they will find out the correct way; in other words, they will
employ qiyâs! His two assertions contradict each other. If he had been able to
understand the meanings of ijtihâd and qiyâs in the books of usûl al-fiqh, he
would not have fallen into this contradiction. The Egyptian religion reformer
is rather strong in Arabic, his mother tongue, and he is educated to some
extent. Certainly, he can easily read
[1] See below, p. 86, for al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î’s such comments about al-Imâm al-a’zam.
the books of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna and can
understand something within his own limits. But ’ilm al-usûl al-fiqh is like a
large ocean. Being specialized in this branch of knowledge requires having
studied the eighty preliminary branches thoroughly. A person who does not know
these eighty branches, and who even denies them, is ignorant in this branch,
even if he were very powerful in Arabic. This is the age of specialization.
Only in the field of medicine, or in physics or chemistry, many new branches of
specialization are being born. A doctor specialized in internal diseases
sometimes has to refer his patient to a doctor specialized in neurology, who may
have to send his patient to a psychology doctor, who may have to hand over a
patient of his to a psychiatrist. The specialization branches of physiotherapy
are even greater. While there are these various branches of specialization in
science, how could it ever be right to slight, or to go so far as to deny, the
branches of specialization and their experts in religious knowledge which is
higher and more extensive? This should never be admissible, especially on the
part of a person who speaks in the name of knowledge. It is easily
understandable that the religion reformer is very ignorant in ’ilm al-usûl
al-fiqh. It can be of no value at all if an ignoramus speaks ill of an ’âlim,
an expert. An ’âlim, not an ignoramus, can recognize an ’âlim. The words of an
ignoramus, whether favourable or unfavourable, will not be esteemed. An
ignoramus who writes the words of scholars without understanding them and who
thus fills many pages can deceive only those who are ignorant like him. While
writing these lines, we do not ever claim to be authorized in this exalted
branch of knowledge. We see that we are, let alone being scholars, a mere
nothing in comparison with the profound knowledge of the great scholars. We
deem it impertinence on our part to speak or write from ourselves on this
branch of knowledge. But what else could we do, while the ignorant and the
enemies of Islam have come forth and have been moving about freely? They have
been competing with one another in attacking Islam. Not a hero gifted with
perfection to answer them has been seen. Islam has been going away, collapsing.
Lots of infinite thanks be to our Allâhu ta’âlâ that we have been honoured with
seeing a profound scholar of Islam, an expert of this branch of knowledge, who
had seen the situation long before and had been worrying about it ever since,
but had been deprived of saying and writing about it. For this very great
endowment of His, may thanks be to our Allâhu ta’âlâ again!
Even if every hair on our bodies began to speak, we
could not fulfil one-millionth of the gratitude due to this blessing of our
Allâhu ta’âlâ. Had we not heard a few facts from the treasure of hikma and
ma’rifa of that great expert in Islam, who was Hadrat Sayyid ’Abdulhakîm-i
Arwâsî, we, let alone writing books on this sublime, very advanced and very
dangerously subtle subject, could not even dare to open our mouths. But we have
deemed it a duty, even a debt for ourselves to convey the leaks of knowledge
from that source to our brothers-in-Islam. In order to escape the threat in the
hadîth ash-sherîf, “When
fitna arises and bid’as are spread, he who knows the truth should say it! If he
does not, may he be accursed by Allâhu
ta’âlâ, by angels and by all people,” we have been striving to tell
our brothers-in-Islam what we heard and learned. May Allâhu ta’âlâ bless us
with writing the truth! May He bless it with influencing those who read it! May
He forgive us the mistakes which we may make! May He protect the Ummat
al-Muhammadiyya against the fitnas peculiar to the last days of the world!
None of the scholars following a madhhab has ever
disagreed with his imâm al-madhhab’s usûl, even if he had reached the grade of
ijtihâd. The scholars who promulgated the teachings of a madhhab were of
various grades. Most of them were arbâb at-tarjîh who studied the documentary
evidences of tradition coming from the imâm of the madhhab closely and then
preferred one of them. A tradition which was not preferred can not be said to
have been refused. Such traditions are acted upon when there is difficulty. The
preference of one of the traditions coming from the imâm does not mean to
disagree with the imâm. Hadrat al-Awzâ’î, al-Baghawî and al-Ghazâlî, too, were
mutlaq mujtahids like al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î. In many matters their ijtihâds were
in agreement with those of al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î. The ignorant think that they
were in the Shâfi’î madhhab and that they disagreed with the imâm al-madhhab.
As for az-Zamakhsharî, let alone being a Hanafî, he was not even a Sunnî. He
belonged to the Mu’tazila, one of the seventy-two heretical groups. Because the
’ibâdât of the Mu’tazila resembled those of the Hanafî madhhab, the ignorant
think that they were Hanafîs.
Saying that the religion was altered after the Four
Caliphs will astonish not only a man of religious post but also anybody who has
read books; it is something which anybody, religious or irreligious, will
refuse. Both the Qur’ân al-kerîm and the hadîth ash-sherîf state that religious knowledge will
continue without
being altered until Doomsday. A community on the
right path will be continuing until Domsday. In every hundred years, an ’âlim
to strengthen the religion will be created. It is true that the seventy-two
heretical groups appeared and those with heretical beliefs have been on the
increase and there are many ignoramuses and sinners also among Ahl as-Sunna,
but still there are also those who are on the right path. The right path is
obvious; the religion has been keeping its same purity as it had in the first
century of Islam.
The scholars of the four madhhabs have unanimously said
that the hadîth book Mishkât al-masâbîh
is a reliable, genuine one. The hadîth ash-sherîf
quoted in the chapter Kitâb al-fitan of
this book on the authority of Sawbân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) says, “There will come a time when a part of my umma will join
polytheists. Like them, they will worship idols. There will appear liars. They
will think of themselves as prophets. But, I am the last Prophet. There will come no other prophet after me. Among my umma, there will always be those who are
on the correct path. Their opponents will not be able to do any harm to them
until Allâhu ta’âlâ’s order comes.” This hadîth sherîf shows that
religion reformers or zindîqs will never be able to defile this blessed
religion until the Last Day. Though corrupt, destructive and factious ones
among Islamic books teem in the libraries all over the world and they have been
increasing day by day, there are also the right ones among them. They will
never be annihilated, and nobody will be able to eradicate them. They are under
Allâhu ta’âlâ’s protection and preservation. How lucky for those who will
attain to happiness by searching for, finding and reading these books! Couplet:
“I give you the key to the treasure you want!
You may attain to it, though we have not!”