When Sacred Sources Are Severed from Scholarship

Introduction

Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Saffārīnī was among the foremost Ḥanbalī scholars of his age. During his lifetime, Damascus stood as one of the great centers of learning for the Sunni madhhabs, including the Ḥanbalī school, and scholars and students from the surrounding regions would frequently direct their questions there in search of clarification, guidance, and legal judgment. 

This was especially true for the Ḥanbalīs of Najd, including the regions of al-ʿUyaynah, ʿUnayzah, and Riyadh, who maintained correspondence with the leading scholars of Damascus and sought their instruction in matters of creed, fiqh, and legal methodology. 

Al-Saffārīnī himself corresponded with the people of Najd on multiple occasions and even taught them works of ʿaqīdah drawn from the books of the great Ḥanbalī authorities, including the works of Ibn Balbān such as Qalāʾid al-ʿIqyān.

The question translated below is one such correspondence. Whenever a matter arose that disturbed the people of Najd or caused confusion within their communities, they would often write to the scholars of Damascus seeking clarification regarding how such matters were to be understood and addressed. 

In this particular case, the question concerns an emerging call that, on its surface, appeared noble enough: a call to return directly to the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Yet beneath that slogan lay something far more disruptive, namely the abandonment of the books of fiqh and the inherited legal tradition through which the religion had long been transmitted and understood. 

Najd itself had long been recognized as a region deeply rooted in the Ḥanbalī tradition, and now a new call had emerged urging people to abandon that scholarly inheritance in favor of direct engagement with the revealed texts according to the understanding and methodology of a particular individual.

Neither the question nor the response explicitly names the individual in question. Yet anyone familiar with the historical circumstances, the timeline of al-Saffārīnī’s correspondence with Najd, and the events unfolding in the region during this period may arrive at a rather compelling conclusion, especially as the Shaykh begins describing the nature of the movement, its followers, and its leader. 

Since al-Saffārīnī himself refrained from mentioning a name explicitly, the same restraint has been maintained here, leaving the matter to the discernment of the reader.

This question appears as the final entry in al-Ajwibah al-Najdiyyah ʿan al-Asʾilah al-Najdiyyah (“The Najdī Responses to the Najdī Questions”).

Question

As for the second question, it concerns whether someone lacking complete scholarly aptitude may derive legal rulings directly from the Glorious Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Noble Prophet ﷺ while turning away from the statements of the Imāms of the religion and the rulings that have been recorded by leading scholars of the Muslims.

Discussion of this issue revolves around several objectives.

The First Objective

Know that the religion is that which Allāh, Mighty and Majestic, legislated upon the tongue of His Prophet ﷺ, namely what He revealed in His Mighty Book or commanded His Prophet ﷺ to convey to His servants, legislate for them, and clarify through the aḥādīth transmitted by his Companions from his statements, actions, tacit approvals, and descriptions.

Thus, the foundation of the Sharīʿah revolves around the Qur’an, the Sunnah, qiyās founded upon what they indicate, and ijmāʿ, to which both ultimately return. These are upheld by the protected and safeguarded Ummah, watched over through divine support, which does not unite upon misguidance.

The religion is that which Allāh, Mighty and Majestic, legislated and which His chosen and infallible Prophet ﷺconveyed. It was then transmitted from him by his noble Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them, then conveyed from them by the Tābiʿūn, may Allāh have mercy upon them, and thereafter codified from them by the followers of the Tābiʿūn from among the Imāms of the religion and the great mujtahid scholars.

These are the three virtuous generations. As for the fourth century, there is a well-known disagreement regarding it, as is established in the transmitted aḥādīth. In the Ṣaḥīḥayn and elsewhere through the narration of ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn, may Allāh be pleased with him who said, He ﷺ said:

“The best of people are my qarn (generation), then those who come after them, then those who come after them.”

ʿImrān, may Allāh be pleased with him, said:

“I do not know whether he mentioned two generations after his own or three.”

“Then there would come after them a people who testify without being asked to testify, betray trust and are not trustworthy, make vows and fail to fulfill them, and corpulence would become widespread among them.”

And in one narration:

“They would swear oaths without being asked to do so.”

The verifying Imām, Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Ibn al-Qayyim, said in his Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn:

“The noble Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them, passed on to the Tābiʿūn what they had received from the radiant niche of prophethood, pure and unadulterated. Their chain of transmission from their Prophet ﷺ, from Jibrīl, from the Lord of the worlds, was connected, authentic, and elevated. And they said: ‘This is the covenant of our Prophet to us, and we have entrusted it to you.’’ 

This was the command and bequest imposed upon them by their Lord. And we have entrusted it to you. This is the command of our Lord and His obligation upon us, and it is likewise His command and obligation upon you.

Thus, the Tābiʿūn followed their path with excellence, adhering to their methodology and tracing their footsteps along their straight course.

Then came the followers of the Tābiʿūn after them, and thereafter the Imāms emerged in the fourth virtuous generation according to one of the narrations, as is established in the authentic reports from Abū Saʿīd, Ibn Masʿūd, Abū Hurayrah, ʿĀʾishah, the Mother of the Believers, and ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn, may Allāh be pleased with them all, from his ﷺstatement:

“The best of people are my qarn (generation), then those who come after them…”

And a qarn refers to the people of a single era who are close together in time and united by some shared matter of significance. The soundest view is that it is not restricted to a fixed number of years.

Thus, the qarn of the Prophet ﷺ refers to his Companions, and their era extended from the beginning of his mission until the death of the last of them, Abū al-Ṭufayl, spanning one hundred and twenty years.

The qarn of the Tābiʿūn extended for approximately seventy years thereafter, and the qarn of the followers of the Tābiʿūn continued from that point until around the year two hundred and twenty. It was during this period that innovations began to spread widely. 

The Muʿtazilah unleashed their tongues, and the Jahmiyyah openly manifested their doctrine.

Although the roots of innovation, such as Rafḍ and Qadar, appeared before that period, indeed emerging while the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ were still present. 

The Khawārij arose during the caliphate of the Commander of the Believers, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, as did the Rāfiḍī Sabāʾiyyah and those who followed their path. 

Likewise, the Qadariyyah emerged during the lifetime of ʿAbd Allāh, the son of the Commander of the Believers ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, may Allāh be pleased with them both.

The Muʿtazilah also appeared during the lifetime of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. Indeed, they were called Muʿtazilah because of their withdrawal from his circle.

However, in the third century, the philosophers raised their heads, the Qarāmiṭah and Bāṭiniyyah openly spread their doctrines, and the Imāms of the religion and the scholars of the Muslims were put to trial in order to compel them to say that the Qur’an was created.

And their greatest target was our master and Imām, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, upon whom be mercy and divine pleasure. He rose in defense of the Sunnah with the most complete resolve, and he was supported in that by noble Imāms, towering authorities, and mighty preservers of the religion of Islām. May Allāh reward them for their striving and keep us firm upon their path.

Thus was manifested the truthfulness of his ﷺ statement: "Then falsehood will become widespread."

 And Allāh knows best.

Our master, Imām Aḥmad, said:

“It is necessary for a man, when he undertakes the burden of issuing fatwā, to possess knowledge of the various modes of qiyās, knowledge of authentic chains of transmission, and knowledge of the Books of Sunnah.”

And he, may Allāh be pleased with him, said:

“Disagreement only arose among those who differed due to the scarcity of their knowledge concerning what has come from the Prophet ﷺ and their limited ability to distinguish its authentic reports from its unsound ones.”

If this is understood, then how could it ever be permissible for one lacking complete scholarly aptitude to derive legal rulings directly from the Magnificent Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Noble Prophet ﷺ, upon whom be the most excellent prayers and most complete salutations?

Especially when the rulings of the Noble Qur’an are known only through the earliest generations, and the authentic Sunnah cannot be distinguished from the defective except through the trusted masters upon whom reliance is placed.

And if such a person accepts the authentication and weakening judgments of the great ḥuffāẓ and the Imāms of al-jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl, then he has already performed taqlīd of them.

So if he then claims that he has cast the yoke of taqlīd from his neck, he has lied, fabricated falsehood, and dared to speak recklessly regarding the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ.

And this is our master, Imām Aḥmad, may Allāh be pleased with him, who said, as is related in the narration of his son ʿAbd Allāh, may Allāh have mercy upon him:

“If a man possesses the compiled books containing the statements of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and the differing opinions of the Companions and Tābiʿūn, it is not permissible for him to act according to whatever he wishes, selecting from them as he pleases, issuing judgments and acting upon them, until he asks the people of knowledge regarding what should be taken from them, so that he may proceed upon sound guidance.”

And in the narration of Abū al-Ḥārith, he said:

“Issuing fatwā is not permissible except for a man who possesses knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah.”

And in the narration of Ḥanbal, he said:

“Whoever issues fatwā should possess knowledge of the statements of those who preceded him. Otherwise, he should not issue fatwā.”

Thus, the one who claims to have cast the yoke of taqlīd from his neck in times such as these, the only true translation of his claim is either his lying and fabrication, or his having cast the yoke of Islām itself from his neck and thrown it behind his back.

How, then, are we to arrive at the rulings of the Qur’an?

The means to fully attain this cannot be realized except after acquiring knowledge of its abrogating and abrogated verses, along with equivalent knowledge concerning the Sunnah as well.

One must also possess sufficient mastery of grammar and language to navigate what pertains to the Mighty Book and the radiant Sunnah, including matters of explicit and apparent wording, concise and clarified expressions, literal and figurative usage, commands and prohibitions, general and specific texts, exceptions and that from which exceptions are made, unrestricted and restricted expressions, as well as dalīl al-khiṭāb, faḥwā al-khiṭāb, laḥn al-khiṭāb, and the various implications and understood meanings of speech.

For certain rulings are connected to these matters and depend upon them as a matter of necessity.

An example of this is His statement, Exalted is He:

“And for wounds there is retaliation.”

For the ruling differs according to whether the word al-jurūḥ is read in the nominative or accusative case.

Thus, whoever does not possess knowledge of these matters is incapable of deriving rulings from the Book and the Sunnah, for both stand at the highest summit of eloquence and inimitability.

Therefore, one must possess knowledge of the linguistic usages of the Arabs such that he is able to interpret the speech of Allāh, Mighty and Majestic, and the speech of His Messenger ﷺ according to what is strongest and most authoritative from the styles, conventions, and modes of expression employed by the Arabs.

It is also required that he possess knowledge of those rulings upon which consensus has been established and those over which disagreement exists, so that he does not issue a fatwā contrary to ijmāʿ and thereby violate the consensus of the Ummah.

Likewise, he must know the circumstances surrounding revelation, as Ibn Ḥamdān and others from our companions, as well as scholars besides them, stated regarding the verses, along with the occasions and contexts surrounding the statements of the Prophet ﷺ in the aḥādīth, so that the intended meaning may be understood, together with what relates to them in terms of specification and generalization.

Our scholars and others have also stated that he must possess knowledge and certainty concerning Allāh, His necessary attributes, what is permissible with respect to Him, Mighty and Majestic, and what is impossible regarding Him. He must know and affirm that Allāh, the Exalted, is All-Knowing, All-Wise, Self-Sufficient, and All-Powerful; that the Messenger ﷺ is protected from error in what he legislated; and that the consensus of the Ummah is protected from misguidance.

And sound knowledge of these matters cannot be attained except after knowledge of His sacred Essence and perfect attributes. Nor can sound knowledge of the Prophet’s ﷺ infallibility be attained until one first knows that he is truly a Prophet. Likewise, sound knowledge of the Ummah’s protection from error cannot be attained until one knows that it is impossible for the Ummah to unite upon misguidance.

Our master, Imām Aḥmad, may Allāh be pleased with him, said in the narration of his son Ṣāliḥ:

“It is necessary for a man, when he undertakes the burden of issuing fatwā, to possess knowledge of the various dimensions of the Qur’an, knowledge of authentic chains of transmission, and knowledge of the collections of sunnah.”

And in the narration of Abū al-Ḥārith, he said:

“Issuing fatwā is not permissible except for a man who possesses knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah.”

And in the narration of Ḥanbal, he said:

“Whoever issues fatwā should possess knowledge of the statements of those who preceded him. Otherwise, he should not issue fatwā.”

And in the narration of Yūsuf ibn Mūsā, he said:

“It is obligatory for a man to learn everything about what people have said.”

And in the narration of Muḥammad ibn ʿUbayd Allāh ibn al-Munādī, he heard a man ask him:

“If a man memorizes one hundred thousand aḥādīth, would he then be considered a faqīh?”

He replied: 'No.'

He said: 'Then two hundred thousand?'

He replied: 'No.'

He said: 'Then three hundred thousand?'

He replied: 'No.'

He said: 'Then four hundred thousand?'

At this, he gestured with his hand in this manner, moving it slightly.

His grandson, Aḥmad ibn Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad, said: 'I said to my grandfather: ‘How much had Imām Aḥmad memorized?’

He replied: ‘He answered on the basis of six hundred thousand.’”

And ʿAbd Allāh, the son of Imām Aḥmad, said:

“I asked my father regarding a man who possesses the compiled books containing the statements of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, the Companions, and the Tābiʿūn, yet lacks discernment concerning weak and abandoned narrations, as well as strong and weak chains of transmission. Is it permissible for him to act according to whatever he wishes from them, selecting as he pleases, issuing fatwā and acting upon that?

He replied: ‘No. He must not act until he asks regarding what should be taken from them, so that he proceeds upon sound guidance. He must ask the people of knowledge concerning that.’

And Allāh knows best.”

The Second Objective

Know that the muftīs who have appointed themselves to issue fatwā, namely the mujtahids, are divided into four categories.

The first category is the unrestricted mujtahid (al-mujtahid al-muṭlaq), one who possesses knowledge of the Book of Allāh, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, and the statements of his Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them. He is the mujtahid concerning the rulings of newly arising matters, seeking therein conformity with the revealed evidences wherever they may lead.

He is the one for whom the previously mentioned conditions are required.

Nor does his rank of ijtihād preclude him from occasionally performing taqlīd of one more knowledgeable than himself in certain matters.

The verifying Imām Ibn al-Qayyim said near the end of his Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn:

“We do not find any of the Imāms except that he performed taqlīd of someone more knowledgeable than himself in certain rulings.”

And Imām al-Shāfiʿī said regarding one issue in ḥajj:

“I said this in taqlīd of ʿAṭāʾ.”

This category consists of those for whom issuing fatwā is permissible, whose fatwās may lawfully be sought, and through whom the communal obligation of ijtihād is fulfilled.

They are the ones concerning whom the Prophet ﷺ said:

“Indeed, Allāh sends to this Ummah at the head of every hundred years one who renews for it its religion.”

The condition for such people is the complete fulfillment of the requirements of ijtihād. Thus, the faqīh must exhaust the utmost extent of his ability until the soul itself senses incapacity to exert any further effort in attaining a legal ruling concerning a matter in which ijtihād is permissible and whose ruling is speculative (ẓannī).

By saying “legal ruling,” purely rational and sensory matters are excluded.

Such a person must therefore be a faqīh, namely one possessing mastery of uṣūl al-fiqh and what is derived from it.

Included within this is that he possess a faculty and intellectual strength enabling him to properly navigate the sciences through synthesis and distinction, arrangement and classification, authentication and invalidation.

For these qualities constitute the very foundation and governing principle of the discipline of fiqh.

He said in Sharḥ al-Taḥrīr:

“If a faqīh cannot address a new issue by drawing upon his understanding of an issue previously discussed, then he is not truly a faqīh.”

And it is indispensable that he possess detailed knowledge of the transmitted evidences and the varying ranks and strengths of those evidences.

Once this is understood, then how could it ever be permissible for one lacking complete scholarly aptitude to derive rulings directly from the Magnificent Qur’an and the hadith of the Noble Prophet ﷺ while abandoning the statements of the scholars?

Especially when Imām Aḥmad said:

“He must not act until he asks regarding what should be taken from them, so that he proceeds upon sound guidance. He must ask the people of knowledge concerning that.”

The second category of mujtahids is the restricted mujtahid (mujtahid muqayyad) within the madhhab of the Imām whom he follows.

Such a person is a mujtahid in knowing the fatāwā, statements, legal foundations, and principles of his Imām. He possesses mastery of them and is capable of deriving subsidiary rulings upon them and extending analogical reasoning from the established statements of his Imām to matters upon which no explicit statement has been transmitted.

Yet despite this, he is not merely a blind follower of his Imām, neither in the ruling itself nor in its evidence. Rather, he follows his methodological path in ijtihād and fatwā, calls others to his madhhab, organizes and clarifies it, and thus agrees with him both in objective and in method.

This rank was claimed among the Ḥanbalīs by al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā and al-Qāḍī Abū ʿAlī ibn Mūsā in his Sharḥ al-Irshād. Likewise, many among the Shāfiʿīs claimed this rank as well.

The Ḥanafīs differed regarding Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad, and Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl. The Shāfiʿīs differed regarding al-Muzanī, Ibn Surayj, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Marwazī. The Mālikīs differed regarding Ashhab, Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Ibn al-Qāsim, and Ibn Wahb. And the Ḥanbalīs differed regarding Ibn Ḥāmid and al-Qāḍī.

The disagreement concerning all of these figures was whether they were independent mujtahids in their own right or whether they remained restricted within the madhhabs of their respective Imāms. These became the two well-known positions concerning them.

The verifying scholar Ibn al-Qayyim said in Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn:

“Whoever carefully examines the conditions, fatāwā, and legal selections of these scholars will know that they were not merely imitators of their Imāms in everything they said. Their disagreements with them are too manifest to be denied, even though among them were those more independent and expansive than others. Yet their rank remained below that of the Imāms with respect to independent ijtihād.”

The third category is one who is a mujtahid within the madhhab to which he ascribes himself. He establishes and defends that madhhab through evidences, possesses mastery of its fatāwā, and has deep knowledge of them, yet he does not go beyond the statements and verdicts of his Imām, nor does he ever oppose them.

Whenever he finds an explicit statement from his Imām, he does not depart from it to another opinion under any circumstance.

This is the condition of most of those who authored works within the madhhabs of their Imāms, and it characterizes the state of most scholars among the various legal schools.

Many of them even assume that they have no need to know the Qur’an, the Sunnah, or the Arabic language directly, since they suffice themselves with the textual statements of their Imām. To them, those statements function almost as though they were the very texts of the Lawgiver himself. Thus, they consider themselves relieved of the burden, toil, and hardship of legal investigation, believing that the Imām has already spared them the labor of deriving rulings and extracting them from the revealed texts.

At times, such a person may see that his Imām mentioned a ruling together with its evidence, and he contents himself with that proof alone without investigating whether any opposing evidence exists.

Ibn al-Qayyim said in Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn:

“This is the condition of many of the scholars associated with legal positions, methodological paths, and both lengthy and abridged works. Such people neither claim ijtihād nor openly admit to taqlīd.

Many of them say: ‘We examined the madhhabs through ijtihād and found the madhhab of our Imām to be the closest to the truth.’ And each group says this regarding its own Imām, claiming that he is more deserving of being followed than others.

Among them are those who go to excess, making it obligatory to follow their Imām and prohibiting the following of anyone else.”

Ibn al-Qayyim said in Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn:

“How astonishing it is that they possessed enough ijtihād to conclude that the one they follow and imitate is more knowledgeable than everyone else, more deserving of being followed than all besides him, that his madhhab is the strongest, and that the truth revolves around him, yet that very same ‘ijtihād’ held them back from exerting themselves in the speech of Allāh and His Messenger ﷺ and deriving rulings directly from them.”

With this, he struck them with a subtle yet piercing criticism and a severe rebuke. And Allāh is the Granter of success.

The fourth category is a group who became versed in the madhhab to which they ascribe themselves, preserving its fatāwā and subsidiary rulings, while openly acknowledging absolute taqlīd in every respect.

If they mention the Qur’an and the Sunnah at all, they do so only as a means of barakah (blessing) and virtue, not as sources of proof and legal practice.

Whenever they encounter an authentic hadith that contradicts the statement of the Imām they follow, they adopt the statement of their Imām and abandon the hadith. Likewise, if they see that the rightly guided caliphs issued a legal verdict, yet find that their Imām held a contrary opinion, they take the verdict of their Imām and leave aside the fatāwā of the Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them.

And they say:

“The Imām knows these matters better than we do. We have committed ourselves to following him, so we do not depart from him nor go beyond him. Indeed, the Imām knows better than us why he adopted the position he held.”

As for anyone outside these four categories, he is merely a pretender and an idler who has elevated himself above the rank of sincere students while falling short of the station of true scholars.

Such a person is among those who obstruct and confuse others. Yet when fate assists him and he ventures to answer questions independently, he says:

“It is permissible, provided its conditions are fulfilled.”

“It is valid, provided its conditions are fulfilled.”

“It is permissible so long as no legal impediment prevents it.”

And other similar responses of the sort that anyone can utter, whether scholar or layman alike.

Note:

The great scholar Ibn Ḥamdān and others said:

“For a very long time now, the unrestricted mujtahid has ceased to exist, even though attaining this rank today is easier than it was in earlier times, because hadith and fiqh have now been codified, as have all the sciences connected to ijtihād, including the Qur’anic verses, prophetic narrations, uṣūl al-fiqh, Arabic language studies, and other related disciplines.

However, aspirations have grown weak, ambitions have become lethargic, the fire of goodness and serious striving has dimmed, and the eye of reverent reflection has become stagnant. People have instead contented themselves with taqlīd, inclined toward comfort and ease, and abandoned true diligence.

And with Allāh lies all success.”

The Third Objective

If people in these times, and indeed for generations before us, were told:

Abandon the statements of the Imāms of the religion, those upon whose authority the Muslims across all lands have long agreed, and instead derive the rulings of your religion directly from the Mighty Qur’an and the radiant Sunnah. Leave aside taqlīd altogether." then this would amount to corruption of the religion of Islām itself, especially when directed toward those who are neither scholars nor people of complete knowledge and sound judgment.

In times such as these, such a call is a form of delirium and reckless confusion, because people do not know the nāsikh from the mansūkh, the mujmal from the mubayyan, the gharīb and similar sciences connected to the Book of Allāh, nor can they distinguish the ṣaḥīḥ of the Sunnah from its ḥasan, ḍaʿīf, muʿallaq, muʿḍal, munqaṭiʿ, gharīb, shādh, and mawḍūʿ narrations, except through performing taqlīd of the great critical masters who refined these sciences, established their principles, organized their chapters, clarified their divisions, and fulfilled this responsibility in the most complete manner.

They refined the Sharīʿah, extracted its rulings, undertook the disciplines of al-jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl, and established the clearest proofs and strongest evidences for all that they affirmed.

If a scholar in our times, or even in generations before us, says regarding a hadith, "This hadith is authentic," then reliance upon that statement is itself taqlīd of what the scholars established. And if he says, "This is the stronger interpretation," then following it is merely walking the path they themselves preferred and inclined toward.

For who, in these times, can truly attain such ranks or traverse those methodologies and paths?

The statement of this fool in his claims, along with the confusion he cast upon his followers and the falsehoods he fabricated, resembles what was once advanced, invented, and fabricated by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Tūmart, one of those who rose against the rulers of the Islamic West. His reports are preserved, and his condition is well known among the historians.

He is the author of the creed he named “al-Murshidah” (the Guiding Creed), which Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allāh sanctify his soul, referred to as “al-Mughwiyah” (the Misguiding Creed). Ibn Taymiyyah spoke against both him and it at length, the explanation of which would be too extensive to recount here.

Ibn Tūmart forbade his followers from adhering to the madhhabs, thereby constricting for them the path of salvation while opening for them the door of destruction and disgrace.

Though he possessed elements of rebellion and innovation, they were still less severe than the rebellion of this foolish man who is now followed and obeyed. Ibn Tūmart introduced innovations, yet they did not reach the level of deviation and rebellion found in this man.

Rather, the path, innovation, and rebellion of this fool resemble the path of Nāfiʿ ibn al-Azraq, the leader of the Azāriqah Khārijites, in their rebellion, innovations, and utter disregard for shedding the blood of Muslims, terrorizing them, and deeming lawful their blood, wealth, women, and children.

No person of sound intellect from among the people of knowledge and true inheritance could possibly doubt that this constitutes a departure from the three revealed religions altogether. Indeed, what they have fallen into of ilḥād, manipulation, arbitrary combination and separation of rulings constitutes one of the gravest forms of zandaqah.

How astonishing it is that he found it permissible to forbid taqlīd of the Imāms of the religion, those upon whose authority consensus has been established among both the early and later scholars, yet deemed it lawful for his renegade followers and misguided devils to imitate him and follow him in matters of religion.

Thus, all of them, men and women alike, constantly say:

‘The Shaykh commanded us with such-and-such.’

‘He forbade such-and-such.’

‘He declared this unlawful.’

‘He permitted that.’

And he declared unbelievers those who did not adopt his doctrines, while permitting the shedding of the blood of those who refused to follow him in his misguidance.

Yet despite all of this, all of them, or at least the overwhelming majority of them, are illiterate commoners. They possess no inherited knowledge of the Sharīʿah and no acquaintance with the recognized scholarly paths. Rather, they are among the most ignorant of the masses, the harshest of shepherds, and the lowest of the rabble.

So how could it possibly be deemed permissible for him and them to imitate his own desires, when we know with certainty that the qualifications of ijtihād are absent from him altogether, while simultaneously prohibiting taqlīd of those whose permissibility of being followed has been affirmed by consensus among both the early and later scholars?

Indeed, in these times and lands, it is obligatory to follow one of the four Imāms of Islām. Whoever forbids that is an innovator, rather, a heretical zindīq.

There is no power and no might except through Allāh, the Most High, the Magnificent.

And all praise belongs to Allāh alone. May Allāh send prayers upon our Prophet, his family, his Companions, and all the Prophets and Messengers of Allāh.

And with Allāh lies all success.