This book answers the lies and slanders written by a la-madhhabi Egyptian, Rashid Rida, who passed himself off as a religious man, against the 'ulama' (scholars of Islam) in his book titled Muhawarat, in which he defends the unification (talfiq) of the four madhhabs.

 1 - "During the 'Asr as-Saada, there was no difference of opinion either on iman or on the rules pertaining to practices (a'mal)." [3]* 

And a few lines below, he says,

 "When there was no nass, as-Sahaba reached a decision with their own ijtihad,"

 Thus, refuting his own above-quoted words. He writes the truth in the second quotation. On matters about which there was no nass, as-Sahabat al-kiram (radi-Allahu 'anhum) made decisions with their own ijtihad, 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 imam. When they had a new problem, they would solve it by asking any Mufti they would come across, without looking for this or that madhhab. Ibn Humam wrote so in his Tahrir." 

These words do not agree with what the 'ulama' have written. Dawud ibn Sulaiman quotes Ibn Amir Haj as saying: "My master Ibn Humam said it was necessary for a non-mujtahid to follow one of the four madhhabs." [4]* Ibn Nujaim al-Misri wrote: "As explained clearly in Tahrir by Ibn Humam, it is unanimous among the 'ulama' that anything that does not agree with any of the four madhhabs is wrong." [5]]* 'Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulusi quotes Ibn Humam 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 Muhammad's ('alaihi 's-salam) religion is possible only by following one of the four madhhabs. 'Taqlid' means to accept somebody's word without searching for his proof (dalil). And this is done by intending with the heart. Anything done without an intention becomes wrong (batil). 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 'ulama', it is permissible for him to follow different madhhabs in different affairs. So did the book Tahrir 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. [6]* There have been also those scholars who have said that when one begins following one madhhab, he should not follow another madhhab in any other thing he does unless there is a strong necessity." [7]* 

The aimmat al-madhahib's doing 'ibada 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 ijtihad 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.

 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 forgotten."

 This statement is a very loathsome error which can never be forgiven. He imputes to the 'ulama' 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 fatwa that will change the ijtihad of the aimmat al-madhahib. The la-madhhabi people such as 'Abduh and his followers are certainly outside the circle of those scholars. They have been the ones who want to upset the madhhabs. But none of the words of these la-madhhabi people exists in current fiqh books. "Fiqh books" are written by fiqh scholars. Books written by the ignorant, the la-madhhabi or those who mix the religion 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 aimmat al-madhahib say, 'Do not imitate us. Make use of our proofs, instead. Those who do not know the basis of our words are not allowed to follow our words.' "

 Not the aimmat al-madhahib but the la-madhhabi say these words. The aimmat al-madhahib say, "The follower (muqallid) does not have to know the documents of the mujtahid. The words of the imam al-madhhab are documents for him."

 5 - "As humanity evolved, men's intellects changed in the process of time." [8]* 

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 wants to say that early prophets ('alaihimu 's-salam) and their companions were unintelligent. He who believes so becomes a kafir. Adam, Sheet, Idris, Nuh (Noah) and many other prophets ('alaihimu 's-salam) were among the early people. All of them were more intelligent than all of today's human beings. A hadith ash-Sharif says that each century will be worse than the one preceding it. Rashid Rida contradicts this hadith ash-Sharif.
 
 

FOOTNOTES

 [3] (Quotations 1-4) the preface to the Turkish version (by Hamdi Akseki) of Muhawarat.
[4] Dawud ibn Sulaiman, Ashadd al-jihad, p. 16.
[5] Ashbah, Ijtihad,¯ the first chapter of the second part.
[6] See the article 33.
[7] Khulasat at-tahqiq.
[8] (Quotations 5-9) the Arabic preface to Muhawarat by Rashid Rida.