• Waqf Ikhlas Publications No: 10

  • FileName: 10-AnswerToAnEnemyOfIslam.pdf [read-online]

Download the ebook

Waqf Ikhlas Publications No: 10
Darussefaka Cad. No: 57/A P.K. 35 34262
Tel: 90.212.523 4556 – 532 5843 Fax: 90.212.525 5979
e-mail: [email protected]
The hadîth ash-sherîf reported by ad-Dârimî:
This hadîth sherîf is explained in Hadrat al-Imâm
ar-Rabbânî’s Maktûbat, I, 53rd letter (Endless
Bliss, Second Fascicle, Chapter 10).
Publisher’s Note:
Those who wish to print this book in its original form or to
translate it into another language are permitted to do so. We
pray that Allâhu ta’âlâ will give them blessings for this beneficial
deed of theirs, and we thank them very much. However,
permission is granted with the condition that the paper used in
printing will be of a good quality and that the design of the text
and setting will be properly and neatly done without mistakes.
We will appreciate a copy of the accomplished text.
Preface ..................................................................... 3
Answer To An Enemy Of Islam................................. 7
Conclusion............................................................ 126
Glossary ............................................................... 128
Ihlas Matbaacılık A.Ş. Istanbul Tel: 90.212.454 3000
Allâhu ta’âlâ pities all the people on the earth. He sends useful
and necessary things to everybody. He shows the ways of keeping
away from harm and attaining happiness. In the next world, He will
forgive whomever He likes of those guilty Believers who are to go
to Hell, and He will bring them to Paradise. He, alone, is the One
who creates every living being, who keeps every being in existence
every moment, and who protects all against fear and horror.
Trusting ourselves to the honourable name of Allâhu ta’âlâ, we
begin to write this book.
We offer up our prayers and salâms for Hadrat Muhammad
(’alaihi’s-salâm), the most beloved Prophet of Allâhu ta’âlâ. We
offer auspicious prayers for the pure Ahl al-Bayt of that exalted
Prophet and for each of his just and devoted Companions (radiy-
Allâhu ’anhum).
Allâhu ta’âlâ is very merciful to His creatures. He wills the entire
mankind to live in ease and peace in this world and to have an
eternal life in favors and blessings after they die. To attain this
bliss, He orders them to believe, to become Muslims, to join the
path of His Prophet Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and his
Companions, to love and help one another. Our Prophet (sall-
allâhu alaihi wa sallam) stated, “As the stars guide throughout
dark nights, my As-hâb are the guides along the way leading
to felicity. Follow any one of them, and you will attain to
felicity.” All of the As-hâb-i-kirâm learned the Holy Qur’ân from the
Messenger of Allah. As they travelled later on, they propagated
what they had learned. They did not insert their personal ideas into
what they had heard from the Messenger of Allah. The Islamic
scholars, in their turn, wrote in their books whatever they had heard
from the As-hâb-i-kirâm. These scholars are called “Scholars of
Ahl as-sunna(t).” Afterwards, there appeared some scholars who
interpolated into these teachings. These people conglomerated
ideas from the ancient Greek philosophers, concoctions from Jews
and Christians, and, especially, lies fabled by British spies. Also,
adding their personal impressions and whatever they had acquired
of the scientific teachings of their times, they invented new religious
teachings. Speaking in the name of ‘Islamic Scholars’ they tried to
demolish Islam from within. Of these people, those who changed
âyats and hadîth-i-sherîfs with clear meanings — âyats and
hadîths of this sort are called Nass— became Kâfirs (disbelievers).
Those who misinterpreted the ones with hidden meanings were
termed Groups of Bid’a(t). There appeared a number of heretical
groups of bid’a carrying the name of Muslims. Exploiting this
situation, the British are inventing groups of disbelief and heresy
and trying to annihilate original Islam. Today, Muslims in the world
have separated into three groups: Ahl as-Sunna, the Shî’ites and
the Wahhâbîs. Their beliefs are different from one another. Since
this difference originates from the mistakes made in the
interpretation of nasses [âyats and hadîths] whose meanings
cannot be understood clearly and since they do not deny nasses
with clear meanings, they do not call one another ‘disbeliever.’ Yet,
they hate one another. True Muslims, who are called Ahl as-
sunna(t), should love and help one another, speak and write mildly
to one another, and even when they have to warn one another,
they should not harm one another; they should help one another
and gently counsel one another in their oral and written
transactions. They should help one another and entire mankind,
obey the beautiful morals of Islam, and refrain strictly from causing
fitna (disunion). They should not rebel against the laws of the
countries they live in or attack anybody’s life, property or chastity. A
Muslim has to bear these qualities. All our words, writings and
actions have to be meliorative and cooperative. Sad to say, some
degenerate people who are the enemies of religion and mankind
and only think of their own advantages and desires are struggling
to separate Muslims by disguising themselves as Muslims and
even as men of religious positions. They are propagating lies
concocted by British spies. Saying that they will make reforms in
the religion, they want to defile Islam. On the other hand, two other
great enemies, namely ignorance and laziness, act as
encumbrances against being wise and following Islam, and, thus,
differentiating between right and wrong, good and bad. Muhammad
Âlî Pasha, for example, was a good and pious person who served
as an Ottoman Governor in Egypt. Those who succeeded him were
not so. Religious affairs were left in incompetent hands. A
freemason named ’Abduh was brought to the board of
management of Jâmi’ al-Azhar Madrasa, which had been
educating Muslims for centuries. Scotch freemasons began to
destroy Egyptian Muslims economically and spiritually. Through
these freemasons, the British demolished the Ottoman Empire
from the inside. The Grand Vizier Âlî Pasha, a disciple of the
freemason Mustafa Rashîd Pasha, handed the key of the Belgrade
fortress to the Serbs in 1284 A.H. (1868). The Vizier brought his
fellow-mason Jamâl ad-dîn al-Afghânî to Istanbul, and they
together strove to demolish Islam from the inside. They wrote
subversive books.
Rashîd Ridâ, a disciple of ’Abduh, a muftî of Cairo, wrote the
book Muhâwarât al-muslih wa ’l-muqallid, which was published
in Egypt in 1324 (1906). In this book, he writes about the
conversation between a wâ’iz (Muslim preacher) who was
educated in a madrasa and a modernist religion reformer, by which
he gives his own ideas through their tongues. He represents the
religion reformer as young, cultured, modern and powerful in
discernment and logic, while introducing the preacher as a bigoted,
imitative, stupid and slow-thinking man, advises the preacher
through the religion reformer’s mouth and puts on an air of
awakening him from unawareness. He says he gives advice, but in
fact he attacks the Islamic scholars, while misrepresenting heretics,
zindîqs and mulhids as scholars of Islam with extensive
knowledge. The book, which was written shrewdly and completely
through a freemasonic mouth, bears the danger of easily hunting
the credulous, pure youth. The chief of Religious Affairs, Hamdi
Akseki, one of those Turks who read and were influenced by such
books prepared cunningly by ’Abduh and his novices, translated
the book into Turkish, adding a long preface to it and giving it the
name Mezâhibin Telfîki ve Islâmin Bir Noktaya Cem’i, and
published it in Istanbul in 1334 (1916). Professor Ismâil Hakki of
Izmir, another reformer, very much praised and vastly
propagandized the translation, yet, the true religious scholars
during the time of Sultan ’Abd al-Hamîd Khan II saw that the book
would be harmful and prevented it from spreading. And today, we
feel very much worried that the youth will read this poisonous book
and the like and begin to doubt about the greatness of Islamic
scholars and the imâms of the four madhhabs. We have already
wrote in our various books that it is right to follow (taqlîd) one of the
four madhhabs and that lâ-madhhabism means to follow what is
Disbelievers, that is, non-Muslims, imitate their parents and
teachers and do not follow the rules, i.e., the commands and
prohibitions of Islam because of the wrong beliefs they hold. But
Muslims hold fast to these rules. Likewise, the lâ-madhhabî,
because of the wrong beliefs they have acquired by following their
parents and teachers, do not adapt themselves to one of the four
madhhabs, which are the explanations of these rules. But the true
Including the supplement, 143 pages; with call number 810 of the Izmirli
section at the Süleymâniyye Library, Istanbul.
407 pages; with call number 810 of the Izmirli section at the
Süleymâniyye Library, Istanbul.
Muslims, who are called Ahl as-Sunna, owing to their correct îmân
which they have acquired from the knowledge coming from the
Sahâbat al-kirâm (radiy-Allâhu ’anhum) and the îmâms of
madhhabs, adhere to one of the four madhhabs. Muslims of Ahl
as-Sunna have attained the imitation (taqlîd) which is right. We
thought of exposing to our pure, young brothers the lies and
slanders in the book Muhâwarât, which was prepared very
insidiously to distract Muslims from the imitation which is right and
to drift them into the imitation which is wrong, by answering each of
them from the books of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna, thus
performing a humble service to protect Muslims from being led to
endless perdition. Thus the book Answer to an Enemy of Islam
came about. We regard our sincere intention in preparing this book
and this insignificant service to Muslim brothers as a means for the
forgiveness of our sins and as our only stock for our debt of
gratitude for the infinite blessings of Allâhu ta’âlâ.
We wish that our pure, young men of religious post will
attentively read Rashîd Ridâ’s lies and slanders and the refutations
of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna, judge fairly with their pure
conscience, realize the truth, cling to it, know the wrong, and will
not believe in its false decorations and advertisements.
We owe hamd (praise) and thanks to Allâhu ta’âlâ who has
vouchsafed us the present edition of this book, which we prepared
to do this sacred service and this exalted admonition.
A hadîth-i-sherîf reported by Dârimî reports:
An explanation of this hadîth-i-sherîf is written in the fifty-third
letter of the first volume of Mektûbât, by Hadrat Imâm Rabbânî.
A glossary of Arabic and other non-English terms foreign to the
English reader is appended.
Milâdî Hijrî Shamsî Hijrî Qamarî
2000 1378 1420
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.
1– “During the ’Asr as-Sa’âda, there was no difference of
opinion either on îmân or on the rules pertaining to
practices (a’mâl).”[1]
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.
2– “In the first and second centuries [of Islam]
people did not follow a certain madhhab; they did not affiliate
with the madhhab of a certain imâm. When they had a new
problem, they would solve it by asking any muftî they would
come across, without looking for this or that madhhab. Ibn
Humâm wrote so in his Tahrîr.”
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 is not permissible to follow any madhhab
other than the four madhhabs. Today, following Hadrat
(Quotations 1-4) the preface to the Turkish version (by Hamdi Akseki) of
Dâwûd ibn Sulaimân, Ashadd al-jihâd, p. 16.
Ashbâh, “Ijtihâd,” the first chapter of the second part.
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
3– “The political controversies which appeared later and
which were claimed to be for the benefit of the religion
caused the real purpose of the madhhabs to be
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
See below, article 33.
Khulâsat at-tahqîq.
people exists in current fiqh books. “Fiqh books” are written by
fiqh scholars. Books written by the ignorant, the lâ-madhhâbî or
those who mix Islam with politics are not called “fiqh books.”
Their corrupt writings cannot be grounds for blemishing the
scholars of fiqh.
4– It is astonishing that he tells an unforgivable lie: “All
the a’immat al-madhâhib say, ‘Do not immitate us.
Make use of our documents, instead. Those who do
not know the basis of our words are not allowed to
follow our words.’ ”
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.”
5– “As humanity evolved, men’s intellects changed in the
process of time.”[1]
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.
6– “Open the history books and read about the fights that
took place between Ahl as-Sunna and the Shî’a
[Shî’ites] and Khârijîs, and even among those who
were in the Ahl as-Sunna madhhabs! Enmity between
the Shâfi’îs and the Hanafîs caused the Mongols to
assault the Muslims.”
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-
(Quotations 5-9) the Arabic preface to Muhâwarât by Rashîd Ridâ.
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 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
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 617 A.H. and, seeing that the city was
in ruins, asked the people whom he met how it happened; he
was told that there had arisen ta’assub between the Hanafîs
and the Shâfi’îs, that they had fought, and that the Shâfi’îs had
won and the city had been ruined. This story is referred to in
Yâqût’s book Mu’jam al-Buldan. However, Yâqût was not a
historian. As he was a Byzantine boy, he was captured and sold
to a merchant in Baghdad. He travelled through many cities to
do the business of his boss, after whose death he began selling
books. Mu’jam al-Buldan is his geographical dictionary in
which he wrote what he had seen and heard wherever he had
been. He profited much from this book. Rayy is 5 km south of
Tehran and is in ruins now. This city was conquered by Urwat
ibn Zaid at-Tâ’î with the command of Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu
’anh) in 20 A.H. It was improved during the time of Abû Ja’far
Mansûr, and it became a home of great scholars and a centre
Pulpits in mosques.
of civilization. In 616 A.H., the non-Muslim Mongol ruler
Jenghiz, too, destroyed this Muslim city and martyred its male
inhabitants and captured the women and children. The ruins
seen by Yâqût had been caused by the Mongol army a year
before. The lâ-madhhabî asked by Yâqût imputed this
destruction to the Sunnîs, and Yâqût believed them. This shows
that he was not a historian but an ignorant tourist. The lâ-
madhhabî, when they cannot find a rational or historical support
to blemish the followers of madhhabs and the honourable 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 four a’immat al-madhâhib.
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 656
A.H. (1258). He was executed together with those who were
with him. More than four hundred thousand Muslims were put to
the sword. Millions of Islamic books were thrown into the Tigris.
The lovely city turned into a ruin. The Khirkat as-Sa’âda (the
mantle of the Prophet)[1] and the ’Asâ an-Nabawî (the short
stick the Prophet usually had with him) were burned and the
ashes were thrown into the Tigris. The five-hundred-and-twenty-
four-year-old ’Abbâsid State was annihilated. Ibn Alqamî was
not given any position and died in abasement the same year.
That year, ’Uthmân Ghâzî, founder of the Ottoman Empire, was
born in the town of Söghüt.”[2] As it is seen, the Mongols’ ruining
the Muslim countries was caused by a lâ-madhhabî’s treachery
against Ahl as-Sunna. There has been no dispute between the
Hanafîs and the Shâfi’îs; Muslims belonging to the four
madhhabs have loved one another as brothers. This base
slander, which was made against Ahl as-Sunna by Rashîd
Ridâ, was repeated by the reformer named Sayyid Qutb, too,
yet he is given the necessary answer with perfect documentary
evidences in the book The Religion Reformers in Islam.
7– “In many countries, it is seen that the Hanafîs do not
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.
Qisâs-i Anbiyâ’ (History of the Prophets), p. 890.
perform salât together with the Shâfi’îs. Saying ‘âmin’
loud behind the imâm and moving the finger up when
reciting the Tahiyya have been causing enmity.”
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 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]
8– “Of the Islamic umma, many became profound
scholars. Such murshids as Hujjat al-Islâm Imâm al-
Ghazâlî and Shaikh al-Islâm Ibn Taimiyya were of
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]
9– Rashîd Ridâ says:
“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
See below, the 36th article, for “moving the finger up.”
The tafsîr book Al-Jalâlain, in the interpretation of the 230th âyat of
Sûrat al-Baqara.
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-

Use: 0.0569