Hakikat Kitabevi Publications No: 10 answer to an enemy of islam

Documents 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’),
– 31 –

---

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,