It is written in Sayyid Ahmad Tahtâwî’s explanation of Durr-ul-muhtâr; in its section captioned Zabâyih: “Today it is wâjib for every Muslim to be in one of the four Madhhabs. A person who is not in one of the four Madhhabs has dissented from the Ahl as-sunnat. And a person who is not Sunnî is either a heretic or a disbeliever.” Also, the books, Al-Basâir, Al-Mustanad, and Sayf-ul-Abrâr, which extirpate Wahhabism in India, write so and add that they derive the fact from Ihyâ-ul-’ulûm. The last two of them were written in India and the second edition of both books were published in Istanbul.
We are not knowledgeable enough to understand Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. We read Qur’ân al-kerîm not to understand and do as it says, but to get blessed with it, to get benefits from it. We imitators do not know the science of tafsîr, so we learn the rules of the Sharî’at from the books of our religious guides. Our Madhhab leaders learned the meanings of Qur’ân al-kerîm from the Sahâba and from the Tâbi’în, and they wrote them in their books in such a way as we can understand them easily. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the Sûras Nahl and Anbiyâ: “Learn by asking the savants!” It is declared in a hadîth-i-sherîf:
“Each century will be more corrupt than the one preceding it. Thus it will always go on becoming more corrupt until the end of the world.” This hadîth-i-sherîf is written in Hadîqa, in the chapter about the disasters incurred by one’s speech. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from disliking the books written by the best of people during the best of times and from being deceived by the corrupt men of the corrupt centuries!
Yûsuf Nabhânî was one of the greatest savants of the fourteenth century. He stayed in Medina for many years, and thereby got the opportunity of observing Wahhabism closely. In order to spread the information which he gathered, he wrote forty-seven valuable books. In his book Al-Fath-ul-kebîr, there are fourteen thousand, four hundred and fifty hadîth-i-sherîfs arranged in alphabetical order. It was published in three volumes. His book Jâmi’u karâmât-il-Awliyâ, which consists of two volumes, proves that karâmat is true. It was printed in Egypt in 1329 [1911]. All his forty-seven books were printed. His Shawâhid-ul-haqq, which is well-known, was printed for the third time in Egypt in 1385 A.H. [1965]. The book consists of five hundred and seventy pages, of which four hundred and fifty pages refute Ibni Taymiyya and Wahhâbîs, and the remaining hundred and twenty pages explain the superiorities of the Sahâba, the virtues of Hadrat Mu’âwiyya and Amr ibni Âs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhum’ and their service to Islam.
The professors of Jâmi’ul-Azhar, such as Allâma Shaikh Alî Muhammad Bablâwî Mâlikî, Allâma Shaikh Abdurrahmân Sharbînî, Shaikh Ahmad Husayn Shâfi’î, Shaikh Ahmad Basyânî Hanbalî, Ârif Allâma Suleymân Shubrâwî Shâfi’î, Shaikh Abdulkarîm Râfi’î, and also the Chief Muftî of Egypt Allâma Bakrî Muhammad Sadafî Hanafî, Professor Allâma Muhammad Abdulhayy Katânî Idrîsî Fâsî, Allâma Sayyid Ahmad Bey Shâfi’î, Fâdil Allâma Shaikh Sa’îd-i Mûjî Shâfi’î, Allâma Shaikh Muhammad Halabî Shâfi’î, and many another savant of the Ahl as-sunnat liked the book Shawâhid-ul-haqq and praised it by writing long articles.
In its fifth chapter it takes passages from the three books which defend the bid’ats of Ibni Taymiyya, and refutes them with âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. These three corrupt books are Ighâsat-ul-lahfân, by Ibni Qayyim, Firradd-i ’alas-Subkî, by Ibni Abdul-Hâdî, and Jilâ-ul-aynayn fî muhâkama-til-ahmadayn, by Nu’mân Alûsî Baghdâdî, all of which have been written against Ibni Hajar-i-Makkî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’.
Deriving material from the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat, the book Shawâdid-ul-haqq writes, “Islamic savants unanimously communicate that after the fourth century of the Hegira the world no longer had any savants capable of performing ijtihâd. Today all Muslims have to follow one of the certain four Madhhabs, for there is now nobody learned enough to understand Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs or to derive rules from them.Qur’ân al-kerîm and Rasûlullah’s ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ Sunnat will be followed by following the leader of a Madhhab. Reporting from Ibni Hajar-i Haytamî, Imâm-i Manâwî wrote, Jalâladdîn-i Suyûtî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’, who was a very great savant, claimed to be a mujtahid. Upon this the savants of his time asked him a written question. ‘The former savants gave this question two different answers. Even a person who is at the lowest grade of ijtihâd can choose one of these. Take your choice and write it to us,’ they said. He did not dare to choose one, and he said, ‘I am too busy, I do not have any time to do this.’ Ibni Hajar says that since the lowest grade of ijtihâd is too difficult to reach, one should realize that it is impossible to claim to be a mutlaq mujtahid.
Some ignorant people now think of themselves as savants. They attempt to derive rules from Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs by following scholars who are holders of bid’at. They say that they do not need to follow one of the Madhhab leaders. They even disapprove the knowledge derived and understood by the ijtihâds of the Madhhab imâms, and they say that they are not suitable for the contemporary age. They are arrogant ignoramuses. They presume that they follow Qur’ân al-kerîm. Yet in fact they follow their own nafs and the devil. And they encourage everybody to derive meanings from Qur’ân al-kerîm and from Bukhârî. We should not believe these fools. Every Muslim must have the Ahl-i sunnat i’tiqâd and must follow one of the four Madhhabs. Uniting the four Madhhabs by searching and combining the easy aspects of each is called talfîq. It is forbidden to practise talfîq out of indulgence in the desires of our nafs and satan. [It is permissible when only one act is concerned and when there is a necessity to do so.] The difference between today’s men of religion and those savants who were mujtahids is like the difference between the earth and the sky. In fact, it is equal to the difference between the devil and an angel. But, being unaware, stupid, and adherent to the nafs, they think of themselves as learned and perfect. Being deceived by the devil, they are reluctant to follow mujtahids. Such ignorant people are called lâ-madhhabî. They do not understand that ijtihâd is not done concerning things that have been declared clearly through Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. But this does not mean that ijtihâd is done for nothing. Hadrat Abû Hanîfa, who was ahead of all in ijtihâd, would not perform ijtihâd concerning something which had been declared through a da’îf hadîth-i-sherîf. (See Kinds of Hadîths). It was the habit of all the Madhhab leaders that when they met with a question they would first search for its answer in Qur’ân al-kerîm. If they could not find its clear answer in Qur’ân al-kerîm, they would look it up among hadîth-i-sherîfs. If they could not find it among hadîth-i-sherîfs, they would look it up in the ijmâ’-i ummat. If they could not find it in the ijmâ’ either, they would apply qiyâs (analogy) and compare it to another similar question which has an answer in Qur’ân al-kerîm or among hadîth-i-sherîfs, or in the ijmâ’, and thus they would find its answer through ijtihâd. For a thousand years all the Muslims, the savants, the pious ones and the Awliyâ have been following one of these four Madhhabs. None of them claimed to be a mujtahid. We should not deviate from our Madhhab by believing a few ignorant and stupid men of Islam who have appeared recently. Even to the slightest degree, the four Madhhabs never left the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs. Islamic savants command Muslims to follow one of the four Madhhabs. Their purpose is to secure them against two grave dangers awaiting them: becoming a disbeliever or a holder of bid’at. For, if an ignorant person does not follow a Madhhab leader, he will deviate from the way, being left without a guide.
Hadrat Khwâja Muhammad Pârisâ takes evidence from Imam-i Ghazâlî and says in his book Tuhfat-us-sâlikîn, “Three people cannot understand the meaning of Qur’ân al-kerîm. The first one is one who does not know Arabic well and who has not studied Tafsîr. The second one is one who commits a grave sin continuously. It is a grave sin to deviate from the belief of the Ahl as-sunnat. Therefore, a heretic, [e.g. a Wahhâbî or a Shi’î], cannot understand the meaning of Qur’ân al-kerîm. For, the zulmat of the heresy has darkened his heart. The third person who cannot understand Qur’ân al-kerîm is one who has misunderstood one of the tenets of îmân and who does not accept what is right because it disagrees with his wrong understanding.” As it is seen, a person who is not in the Madhhab of the Ahl as-sunnat, well-versed as he may be in Arabic, cannot understand Qur’ân al-kerîm correctly. Publishing his wrong understanding, he leads others to perdition.
The statement, “Interpretations suitable with our time, with our age, are necessary,” is not right. The savants of interpretation developed the tafsîrs (interpretations) by writing the information coming from Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and from his Sahâba. Their tafsîrs are suitable with and enough for every century. The commandments in Qur’ân al-kerîm are the same for everybody, no matter in what age he lives. A Muslim who believes Qur’ân al-kerîm and who wants to obey it will find whatever he is looking for in the existing tafsîrs. A person who does not obey the Sharî’at will absolutely not find his corrupt expectations in these tafsîrs. It is not permissible to write tafsîrs suiting our minds and the century. Ill-willed, ignorant and stupid people claim, despite their short sights, that they can make new tafsîrs. There are many conditions to be fulfilled for being able to make tafsîrs. The first of all these conditions is to live in one of the times praised in the hadîth: “The best of times is my time. Then, the next best time is the one following my time. Next to it, is the time following it.” [A savant of Tafsîr has to know also those âyat-i-kerîmas that are nâsikh and the ones that are mansûkh. It is written on the 355th page of Hadîqa that there are hundred and nine nâsikh âyats in Qur’ân al-kerîm.] None of the recent self-constituted writers of tafsîrs fulfil these conditions. They deprave thoughts and oppose the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat. Proclaiming that they are Sunnî, they have begun to spread their corrupt beliefs far and near. Upon reading their books, the savants of the Ahl as-sunnat immediately understand that they are wrong and tell Muslims that they are not Sunnî. But the ignorant, being unable to distinguish right from wrong, are deceived.” The hadîth-i-sherîf, “My Ummat will suffer much harm from the evil men of religion,” which is quoted in the explanation of the disasters incurred by the hand in the book Hadîqa, forewarns about Wahhâbîs.
The book al-Mîzân-ul-kubrâ writes at the beginning of the fifty-first page and at the end of the sixtieth page that the Sunnat, that is, hadîth-i-sherîfs, explains Qur’ân al-kerîm. The imâms of the Madhhabs have explained the Sunnat. And the religious savants have explained the statements of the imâms of the Madhhabs. So will it be until the end of the world. Had not it been for the Sunnat, that is, the hadîth-i-sherîfs, no one would be able to find them in Qur’ân al-kerîm; hence, no one would have learned about the different kinds of water, cleanliness, the number of rak’ats of each namâz, the limits for being rich for giving zakât, the binding rules of the fast and hajj, or the knowledge of nikâh and laws. When somebody said to ’Imrân bin Hasîn, “Explain it from Qur’ân al-kerîm only!” he answered, “O idiot! Could you find in Qur’ân al-kerîm how many rak’ats there are in each prayer of namâz?” When Hadrat ’Umar was asked, “We cannot find in Qur’ân al-kerîm how many rak’ats of the fard namâz we should peform when we are on a journey,” he said, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has sent Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’ for us. We do what we cannot find in Qur’ân al-kerîm as we learn it from Rasûlullah. He used to perform two rak’ats of those prayers of namâz that have four rak’ats when he was on a journey. And so should we.” It is written on the forty-seventh page, “None of the words of the imâms of Islamic matters is outside of the Sharî’at, for each of them is learned both in the Haqîqât and in the Sharî’at.”
Abridging the book Fatâwâ-i Hâmidiyya, Ibni Âbidîn gave it the name Uqûd-ud-durriyya, and he wrote in its final section that it is necessary to follow a Madhhab.
While explaining the farâid (binding rules) of an ablution, Ibni Âbîdin ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’ states, “A person who rejects the hadîth-i-sherîfs that have been reported by only one person or the knowledge that has been understood through qiyâs, does not become a disbeliever, but he has deviated from the right way. He becomes a bid’at holder. It is certain that he will enter Hell. He who accepts them though he does not practise them becomes sinful; he has omitted the wâjib. But he who does not practise them because he has deduced another meaning from Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs, does not become sinful.”
Some people have been heard to say, “Wahhâbîs have softened now. Formerly, they used to attack Muslims’ property and lives. They do not perpetrate such savagery now. They even say that they are Sunnî.” Such statements are not true. They are a sign of not seeing or knowing the truth. Yes, the sons of Su’ûd brutally killed Muslims who would not become Wahhâbîs. They do not do so now. But the sons of Su’ûd, who used to attack property and lives formerly, attack Muslims’ faith and îmân now. Formerly they used to destroy the Muslims’ world. Now they attack their next world and eternal felicity. They try to annihilate the belief of Ahl as-sunnat by all possible means, e.g. by distributing among the hadjis a Turkish version of the book Tahqîq wa Idhâh, written by Abdul ’Azîz Bâz, director of the madrasa in Medîna-i-munawwara. On August 5th, 1990, the daily Turkish newspaper Türkiye published an article confuting that perversive book, thus protecting Muslims against the dire threat. They strive with all their forces to drift Muslims into eternal perdition. They have established a Wahhabite center called Râbitatul’âlamil-Islâmî in the blessed city of Mekka. They have opened its branch offices in every Muslim country. Spending money abundantly and suborning those men of religion with precarious faith and knowledge, they use them for promulgating Wahhabism. To men of religion and students of Islam in every country they distribute Wahhabite books in their native languages free of charge. Every year, they spend millions of gold coins in this way. The world’s Muslims, who have been left without books, without knowledge in the last fifty years as a result of the British policy, are easily misled into the wrong and heretical Wahhabite beliefs. Thus the Madhhab of the Ahl as-sunnat, which is right and which has been praised in hadîth-i-sherîfs, is being forgotten, lost. Truth (right) is vanishing, and falsehood (wrong) is settling everywhere. For Muslims, and even for the entire humanity, no other calamity, no other disaster can be worse or more harmful than this.
Some people say about Wahhâbîs, “They have some wrong beliefs, but they have deduced them from âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs. Perhaps they are bid’at holders, but it is declared in hadîth-i-sherîfs that bid’at holders are in this Ummat. They are Muslims, too. They are ahl-i qibla. Mustn’t we love Muslims and deem Wahhâbîs as brothers?” There is no doubt about the soundness of this reasoning. However, loving holders of bid’at entails giving them good counsel. A person who reads with reason and understands the thirty-nine books we have named above will not have any hesitation or doubt about the truth our statement bears. For example, Hadrat Ahmad Ridâ Khân Barilawî, one of the greatest savants of India, wrote in his book Fatâwâ-ul-Haramayn,“A hadîth-i sherîf, transmitted by Tabarânî and others, declares: ‘A person who respects a bid’at holder has helped Islam’s destruction.’ Our Dîn commands us to censure and abhor bid’at holders. It is harâm to respect them. Islamic savants wrote in their books, e.g. in Sharh-i maqâsid, ‘It is necessary to bear hostility towards bid’at holders, to abhor them, to refute and to degrade them.’ Muhammad Ma’thûm-i Fârûqî, in his book Maktûbât-i Ma’thûmiyya, in the second volume, 110th letter states, “Don’t be together with bid’at holders! Save yourself from inattentive religious men, from fawning hâfizes and ignorant shaikhs of takka! Don’t be close to those religious men who behave loose about obeying the rules of the Sharî’at. [For instance, those who do not have the Ahl-i sunnat itiqâd, who allow their wives and daughters to go out without covering themselves properly, those who have drinks containing alcohol, those who play musical instruments, and those who are lâ-madhhâbî or corrupt.] Don’t hear their words! Even leave the city where they live, so that your heart later may not incline towards them! They should never be followed. They are not men of religion, but thieves of religion. They are traps of Satan. One should never be deceived by their gilding and touching words, and should run away as if a lion is after one.” When the bid’at is widespread and its harm is on the increase, it is fard to refute it and to let Muslims know its harm. In fact, there is ijmâ’i ummat on the fact that it is one of the most important fards. The Salaf-i sâlihîn and their successors always did so. A person who omits this fard will have disobeyed the ijmâ. A hadîth-i sherîf declares: “When fitna and bid’at spread, when my Sahâba are slandered, the person who knows what is right should let Muslims know what he knows! If those who know the right way do not announce it to Muslims, may Allâhu ta’âlâ, angels and all people curse them! Allâhu ta’âlâ will not accept their fard or supererogatory worships.” This hadîth-i sherîf is written at the beginning of as-Sawâ’iq-ul-muhriqa and is reported to be included in al-Jâmi’ by Khatîb-i Baghdâdî. [Ahl-i bid’at, that is, a bid’at holder is somebody who is trying to spread his bid’ats to corrupt the beliefs and worships of Muslims. Instead of not loving those who perform bid’at, since they were deceived by the ahl-i bid’at, we should pity them and give them advice.]
Adilla-i shar’iyya consists of four sources. The first one is Qur’ân al-kerîm. The second one is the hadîth-i sherîfs. Each one of these two is either “definite” or “conjectural.” Ibni ’Âbidîn, while explaining the bâghîs (rebels), says, “The people called khârijî misinterpret those sources, [i.e. âyats and hadîths], with conjectural, or ambiguous, meanings, [i.e. âyats and hadîths that can be understood in several ways]. Those who left Hadrat Ali’s army and fought against him were so. They said that the only hâkim (judge) is Allah and that Hadrat Âlî, by leaving the Khilâfat to Mu’âwiya and following the judgement of the two hakams (arbitrators), committed a grave sin. One who commits a grave sin will become a kâfir. This wrong interpretation of theirs caused them to fight against him. They called ‘disbelievers’ those who did not join them in this belief of theirs. Nowadays, those who follow Muhammad bin Abdulwahhâb, who appeared in Najd, call themselves ‘Muslim,’ and they call those who do not have the same belief as theirs ‘mushrik.’ They say, ‘It is halâl to kill them and to plunder their possessions and women.’ These are called Wahhâbî, and Najdî.”
As Wahhabism was manufactured and distributed by the British, likewise it was the British, again, who captured the Hedjaz from the Ottomans and established the Sa’ûdî government. It is written in Munjid: “By supporting the Wahhâbî amîr Faisal, the British spy Lawrence assisted him to disengage his country from the Sublime Porte in 1914.” The mujtahid fiqh ’ulamâ did not say ‘disbelievers’ about those who misinterpreted the ambiguous dalîls and so left the faith of the Ahl as-sunnat. They said that they were ’âsîs (sinners), bâghîs (rebels) and bid’at-holders. In Turkish, they are called deviants. Those who deny (any one of the) dalîls with one definite [clear] meaning become disbelievers. An example of this is not to believe in the annihilation of the universe, or not to believe in the rising of the dead. Those who say, ‘’Alî is a god’ or ‘the angel Gabriel was mistaken while bringing the wahy’ become disbelievers, too. For, these statements are not among the meanings deduced through ijtihâd by misinterpreting the ambiguous dalîls. They are the consequences of following the nafs. Likewise, a person who commits the slander called ‘qazf’ against Hadrat Âisha or who denies the fact that her father is a Sahabî becomes a disbeliever. For each of these cases involves the denial of a dalîl declared clearly in Qur’ân al-kerîm. Not so is the case with blaspheming against Hadrat Abû Bakr and Hadrat ’Umar or denying their caliphates; a person who does so will not become a disbeliever if he can provide a ta’wîl (interpretation, explanation). When a definite and clearly stated harâm is in question, such as attacking Muslims’ property and lives, a person who employs ta’wîl and asserts that it is halâl will become a disbeliever. He will not become a disbeliever if the ta’wîl he employs is on an ambiguous dalîl from the Book and Sunnat.”
As is seen, if a person who claims to be a Muslim and observes the acts of worship, i.e. a person who is said to be an ahl-i-qibla, holds a belief disagreeable with that of the Ahl as-sunnat and at the same time contrary to a definite dalîl with a clear meaning, this belief of his is kufr (disbelief), even if it is deduced by way of ta’wîl. This person is called mulhid. If this belief of his runs counter to the clear and well-known one of the various meanings of an unclear and ambiguous dalîl and if he can provide a ta’wîl (explanation, interpretation), his (erroneous) belief is not kufr. It is a bid’at. If he is unaware of ta’wîl and holds that wrong belief merely in imitation of some heretical scholars or as a result of yielding to the temptations of his nafs or for obtaining worldly advantages, that belief is kufr.
Regardless of whether a person is a Sunnite or a holder of bid’at, if he is ignorant enough to use his faith as an instrument for worldly advantages, or to sacrifice his faith for obtaining some worldly means, he is called a yobaz (an impostor in the name of Muslim). If a person does not believe in any religion but pretends to be a Muslim and deliberately misinterprets the dalîls in order to substantiate the sources of disbelief and thus to mislead Muslims, extinguish their belief and demolish Islam from the interior, he is called a zindiq or a fake scientist. Holders of bid’at, mulhids and their ignorant imitators are called lâ-madhhabîs. Lâ-madhhabîs and those thieves of faith who are called zindiqs appear as religion reformers.
Those who say that ijmâ’ is not a dalîl do not become disbelievers. They are bid’at-holders. Khârijîs, Shi’îs and Wahhâbîs are in this category. Their statements contradicting ijmâ’ are not a source of disbelief. Yet they become disbelievers on account of their other beliefs which cause disbelief.
Ibni Abidîn ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’aleyh’, while explaining salât-ul-witr, states, “Those who deny the origin, i.e., that it is a worship, become disbelievers. If they deny it by doing ta’wîl of the dalîl or by doubting about the dalîl, they do not become disbelievers. [They become ahl-i bid’at.] So is the case with all the wâjibs and sunnats. For, salât-ul-witr is a worship which is dârurî-known by everybody in the Religion and this is evident by Ijmâ’-i ummat. According to the Hanafî ’ulamâ, it is disbelief not to believe in a worship which is dârurî-known and conveyed through ijmâ’-i ummat. The worship dârurî-known in the Religion means the religious knowledge which is known to be in the Religion even by the ignorant. Examples of this are to believe in the oneness of Allâhu ta’âlâ, the Prophethood of Muhammad ‘alaihissalâm’ and that the five daily prayers of salât are fard. Anybody who denies the religious knowledge which is known by only the ’ulamâ does not become a disbeliever. An example of this is to deny that the Jadda (grandmother) will inherit one-sixth of the heritage.”
Ibni Malak, in his explanations of Manâr states that ijmâ’ means to unite. It is the unity of the Mujtahîds of the same era on the rules of the same thing. The thing here could be either a word or an act. Muslims of the same era should unite over something which does not need ijtihâd. Unity is doing the same thing or using the same word. If some of the mujtahîds of an era unite on a certain word or act whereas the rest of the mujtahîds keep their mouths closed and do not oppose it when they hear it, this is also unity according to the Hanafî Madhhab, but it is not called unity according to Shâfi’î. In order to be a member of the unity on things necessitating ijtihâd, one should be a mujtahîd. For unity on the things not needing ijtihâd, like Qur’ân al-kerîm, the number of rak’ats of prayers, the amount of zakât, how to borrow bread and how to go to a bathing-house, being a mujtahîd is not necessary. On these types of things, unity of those non-mujtahids is also acceptable. But they should not be sinners and holders of bid’at. [Accordingly, erroneous things written in books of the Shi’îs and Wahhâbîs is not an ijmâ’. They cannot be evidences for the halâl, harâm and fards.] It is not necessary that they be of Ashâb-i kirâm’s or Ahl-i bayt’s family. It is not necessary that they be residents of Madîna. According to most of the savants, recent scholars can unite on a matter on which there has been no previous agreement, and it is also jâ’iz. If a mujtahîd opposes this, then ijmâ’ will not be obtained. Ijmâ’ can be used for rules coming through a hadîth-i sherîf reported by habar-i wâhid and rules through the qiyâs of a mujtahîd. Ijmâ’ is not valid on rules that are understood clearly from âyat-i-kerîmas or from those kinds of hadîth-i-sherîfs called mashhûr. They are dalîls themselves. If the ijmâ’ of the Salaf-i-sâlihîn, i.e. the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ has reached us through a chain of ijmâ’s throughout centuries, it is identical with a mutawâtir hadîth. In other words, we have to learn and act upon such ijmâ’s of the Ashâb-i-kirâm. Examples of this are the fact that Qur’ân al-kerîm is the Word of Allah and the fact that it is fard to perform namâz, to fast, and to pay zakât. On the other hand, their ijmâ’s that have been reported by one pious Muslim are like those hadîth-i-sherîfs transmitted through habar-i-wâhid. It is wâjib only to act upon them; it is not wâjib to know [or believe] them. An example of this is to perform four rak’ats of sunnat namâz before performing the early afternoon prayer.
There are grades of ijmâ’. Those clearly stated ijmâ’s of the Ashâb-i-kirâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ which have reached us through the ijmâ’ of each era are as strongly authentic as âyat-i-kerîmas and those hadîth-i-sherîfs called mutawâtir. He who denies one of them becomes a disbeliever. Also, an ijmâ’ on which some of the Ashâb-i-kirâm were unanimous while the others remained silent is a definite dalîl; yet a person who denies it does not become a disbeliever. The ijmâ’ of the third grade involves a report on which the Ashâb-i-kirâm disagree and on which there has been unanimity throughout the later centuries. It is identical with a habar (report) termed mashhûr. Next comes the ijmâ’ of the later scholars on a matter on which the Ashâb-i-kirâm were not unanimous; it is similar to a hadîth-i-sherîf reported through a habar-i-wâhid. It is wâjib to act upon it, yet it is not wâjib to believe it. When the Muslims of a certain century give various reports disagreeing with one another on a certain matter, it is bâtil (invalid) for their successors to reach a conclusion that would run counter to all of these various disagreeing reports. It is, therefore, impermissible for them to pronounce judgements contradictory to their statements.
Qiyâs means to compare something to something else. In (the Islamic branch of science termed) fiqh, it means: “When there cannot be found an Islamic solution to a problem because it cannot be understood from the Nass (i.e. âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs with clear meanings), to solve it by comparing it to another similar problem (whose solution is prescribed clearly in the Nass).” That qiyâs is a dalîl, (i.e. an Islamic source) is a traditional fact as well as a logical issue. The âyat-i-kerîma which declares, “O ye who have reason! Take lessons!” purports, “(Compare and) deduce what you do not know from what you know!” For the word “i’tibâr”, (the Arabic word used in the âyat-i-kerîma and which we rendered into English as “take lessons”), means “to compare”. When Mu’âz ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ said (to Rasûlullah) that he wanted to perform qiyâs when in Yemen -because he was going to be sent to Yemen-, t