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

Waqf al-manqûl, “The difficulty stated in the
book 
Naf’ al-wâsâ’il by al-Imâm at-Tarsûsî and in the fatwâs of
’Allâma Ibn ash-Shalbî has been eradicated. It is permissible
according to Imâm Abû Yûsuf and not permissible according to
Imâm Muhammad for a person to donate something to 
himself,
while the donation of something 
movable is not permissible
according to Imâm Abû Yûsuf but permissible according to Imâm
Muhammad. Since neither of the two imâms had said that it would
be permissible for a person to donate something 
movable to
himself, the ijtihâds of both imâms were brought together and a
fatwa was issued stating that this was also permissible. And this is
the subject in relation to which at-Tarsûsî wrote in his book
Munyat al-muftî as “Hukmu mulaffaq jâ’izun.’
[1]
Further, it was the
unification of (different) madhhabs which was prohibited
unanimously. In my book 
Al-’uqûd ad-durriyya fî tankîhi ’l-
Hâmidiyya, I explained this thoroughly.” Also, the permission to
donate money by bringing together the ijtihâds of Imâm Abû
Yûsuf and Imâm Zufar does not show that the unification of
ijtihâds of different madhhabs is permissible, since both the Imâms
were in the Hanafî madhhab. By distorting these clear statements
of fiqh books shamelesly without fearing Allâhu ta’âlâ, the religion
reformer attempts both to deceive the youth and to defame the
most valuable fiqh books, such as 
Durr al-mukhtâr and Radd al-
muhtâr, and thus to demolish Ahl as-sunna from within. This base
scheme clearly reveals the fact that Rashîd Ridâ is not a man of
– 50 –
[1] “The unifier’s conclusion is justifiable,” by which “The unification of
ijtihâds [of mujtahids belonging to the same madhhab] is permissible,”
is meant.

---

religious authority, but an enemy of Islam disguised as a man of
religious authority, that is, a 
zindîq.
Because the scholars of fiqh did not state the rules of Islam out
of their own opinions or intellects but conveyed the knowledge
coming from as-Sahâbât al-kirâm, the reformer abases himself so
far as to stigmatize the ’ulamâ’ as ignoramuses. But the
ignoramuses are these very religion reformers who do not know
this knowledge or the cases to which it is to be applied and who
lie. They are vulgarly ignorant. Because of their ignorance, which
is peculiar to a person who is unaware of his ignorance, they think
they know something, feeling no shame at spreading their
mendacious and corrupt words under the name of knowledge.
The hadîth ash-sherîf,