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

“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
– 41 –

---

(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!
30– The religion reformer, slighting thousands of Islamic
scholars, continues as follows:
“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
– 42 –

---

Prophet, as proofs.”
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