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

Al-
fawâ’id al-bahiyya that he was presumptuous against even such
arch-stones of Islam as al-Imâm ash-Shafi’î and Imâm Mâlik, and
that he was answered in a manner he deserved by Shaikh
Muhammad Miskîn. ’Alî al-Qârî wrote a separate booklet to
accuse Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) parents of disbelief and
boasted about this booklet in his commentary on 
Shifâ’, and it is
obvious that the commentaries and marginalias written by him on
many valuable books are not worthy of making him an authority
in Islam. Being an authority in Islam requires being a mujtahid. A
non-mujtahids’ attempting to judge the great personages of Islam
means to overflow the measures of decency.
Ahmad Ridâ Khan al-Barilawî (d. India, 1340/1921) wrote:
“’Alî al-Qârî’ denied in his book 
Minah ar-rawd that Rasûlullah’s
(sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) blessed mother and father had died
as Believers, and said, ‘To refute it, I wrote a separate booklet. In
this booklet, showing proofs from the Book, the Sunna, qiyâs and
ijmâ’ al-Umma, I refuted what al-Imâm as-Suyûtî wrote in his
three booklets.’ Al-Imâm as-Suyûtî (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) wrote six
booklets to prove that Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam)
blessed parents had died as Believers. This is not a subject of fiqh,
that is, it is not a teaching that can be included in 
af’âl al-
mukallafîn and defined as halâl, harâm, sahîh or fâsid. Therefore,
there is not any qiyâs or ijmâ’ about it. The disagreement between
the ’ulamâ’ on this matter is obvious. The great ’âlim of Islam al-
Imâm as-Suyûtî was thoroughly right. It is also surprising that ’Alî
al-Qârî’ said he had shown proofs from the Book. The Qur’ân al-
kerîm does not mention it, neither openly nor figuratively.
Furthermore, for pointing out any similarity between such matters
and the things that were the causes of the revelation of some ayâts,
one has to document it with hadîths. Al-Imâm as-Suyûtî was such
– 63 –

---

a profound ’âlim of Islam that he can never be compared to ’Alî al-
Qârî’ and the like. He was much more gifted in distinguishing
hadîths from one another and in knowing their ’illa, rijâl and ahwâl
than ’Alî al-Qârî’ and the like, who had no other way than keeping
quiet or surrendering to his writings. This great imâm documented
his writings with overwhelming and silencing evidences. If
mountains understood the soundness of his documentation, they
would melt.”
[1]
37– The religion reformer, at the beginning of the Eleventh
Dialogue, writes on behalf of the preacher:
“We were prohibited from looking at and acting upon
what we would see in any books other than the books of the
scholars of our own madhhab. In fact, we were told that
those writings of Kamâl Ibn Humâm, who was a mujtahidi
fi ’l-madhhab, which disagreed with the rules of the
madhhab, were not to be acted upon even if they would be
based upon sound evidences.”
It is ever possible that a preacher of Islam would say such
absurd and mendacious things? Yet the religion reformer
becomes so furious, so vindictive when attacking the Ahl as-
Sunna that he overflows not only beyond knowledge and decency
but also beyond reason and becomes unconscious with rage. Here,
he touches upon one of the subtle matters of ’ilm al-usûl al-fiqh,
which could be explained briefly as follows: There have been
seven grades for the fuqahâ’ (scholars of fiqh) of the four
madhhabs. The first grade belonged to