6 - "Open the history books and read about the fights that took place between Ahl as-Sunnat and the Shia [Shiites] and Kharijis, and even among those who were in the Ahl as-Sunnat madhhabs! Enmity between the Shafi'is and the Hanafis caused the Mongols to assault the Muslims."

The la-madhhabi people like Rashid Rida, in order to attack the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat, choose a tricky way. For doing this, first they write about the assaults of the seventy-two groups [for whom the Hadith says will go to Hell] against Ahl as-Sunnat, and about the bloody events which they caused, and then they basely lie by adding that the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat fought one another. Whereas, not a single fight has ever taken place between the Shafi'is and the Hanafis at any place at any time. How could they ever fight despite the fact that both belong to Ahl as-Sunnat! They hold the same belief. They have always loved one another and lived brotherly. Let us see if the la-madhhabi people, who say that they fought, can give us an example after all! They cannot. They write, as examples, the jihads which the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat co-operatively made against the la-madhhabi. They try to deceive Muslims with such lies. Because the name "Shafi'i" of Ahl as-Sunnat and the word "Shia" sound alike, they narrate the combats between the Hanafis and the la-madhhabi as if they took place between the Hanafis and the Shafi'is. In order to blemish the Muslims who follow the madhhabs, those who reject the four madhhabs slander them by misinterpreting some special terms. For example, referring to the dictionary Al-munjid written by Christian priests, they define the word 'ta'assub' to mean 'holding a view under the influence of non-scientific, non-religious and irrational reasons' and regard explaining and proving the teachings of madhhabs as ta'assub and say that ta'assub has caused conflicts between madhhabs. Whereas, according to the scholars of Islam, 'ta'assub' means 'enmity that cannot be justified.' Then, attaching oneself to a madhhab or defending that this madhhab is based on the Sunnat and on the sunnas of al-Khulafa' ar-rashidin (radi-Allahu 'anhum) is never ta'assub. Speaking ill of another madhhab is ta'assub, and the followers of the four madhhabs have never done such ta'assub. There has been no ta'assub amongst the madhhabs throughout Islamic history.

The la-madhhabi, who are the followers of one of the seventy-two heretical groups, endeavored much to separate the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs from Ahl as-Sunnat. Those who achieved it caused bloody events. It is a base slander against the scholars of Islam to accuse them of ta'assub because they, to prevent the harm of the la-madhhabi, gave advice to these caliphs and invited them to follow one of the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat. It has become a new scheme of attacking the four madhhabs that anyone who has some knowledge of Arabic looks at history books at random and, from his own point of view, evaluates various past events he fortuitously encounters in them and presents them to the youth as the evidences of the harm of ta'assub that he attributes to the Muslims of Ahl as-Sunnat. To show themselves justifiable, some of those who are against the madhhabs say that they are against not the madhhabs but the ta'assub in madhhabs. However, by misinterpreting 'ta'assub,' they attack the fiqh scholars defending their madhhabs and claim that these scholars caused the bloody events in Islamic history. Thus, they try to make the youth anti-madhhabite.

As it is written in Qamus al-alam, Amid al-Mulk Muhammad al-Kunduri, the vizier of Seljuqi Sultan Tughrul Beg, issued a rescript stating that the la-madhhabi should be cursed at minbars and, therefore, most of the 'ulama' in Khurasan emigrated to other places during the time of Alb Arslan. La-madhhabi people like Ibn Taymiyya distorted this event as "The Hanafis, and the Shafi'is fought each other, and the Asharis were cursed at minbars." They spread these lies and their own false translations from as-Suyuti's books among the youth to deceive them and to destroy the four Ahl as-Sunnat madhhabs and to replace it with la-madhhabism.

The following story is one of those related to ta'assub as it is unjustly attributed to the madhhabs and is claimed to have caused fights between brothers in Muslim history: Yaqut al-Hamawi visited Rayy in 617 A.H. and, seeing that the city was in ruins, asked the people whom he met how it happened; he was told that there had arisen ta'assub between the Hanafis and the Shafi'is, that they had fought, and that the Shafi'is had won and the city had been ruined. This story is referred to in Yaqut's book Mu'jam al-Buldan. However, Yaqut was not a historian. As he was a Byzantine boy, he was captured and sold to a merchant in Baghdad. He traveled through many cities to do the business of his boss, after whose death he began selling books. Mu'jam al-Buldan is his geographical dictionary in which he wrote what he had seen and heard wherever he had been. He profited much from this book. Rayy is 5 km south of Tehran and is in ruins now. This city was conquered by Urwat ibn Zaid at-Tai by the order of Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) in 20 A.H. It was improved during the time of Abu Jafar Mansur, and it became a home of great scholars and a center of civilization. In 616 A.H., the non-Muslim Mogul ruler Genghis, too, destroyed this Muslim city and martyred its male inhabitants and captured the women and children. The ruins seen by Yaqut had been caused by the Mongol army a year before. The la-madhhabi whom Yaqut inquired imputed this destruction upon Ahl as-Sunnat, and Yaqut believed them. And this shows that he was not a historian but an ignorant tourist. The la-madhhabi, when they cannot find a rational or historical support to blemish the followers of madhhabs and the honorable fiqh scholars, make their attacks with the writings and words based on Persian tales. Such tales do not harm the superiority and excellence of the scholars of Ahl as-sunnat but in fact display the la-madhhabi men of religious post are not authorities of Islam but ignorant heretics who are enemies of Islam. It is understood that they have been endeavoring to deceive Muslims and thus to demolish the four madhhabs from the inside by pretending to be men of religious post. To demolish the four madhhabs means to demolish Ahl as-Sunnat, for Ahl as-Sunnat is composed of the four madhhabs with regard to practices (a'mal, fiqh). There is no Ahl as-Sunnat outside these four madhhabs. And to demolish Ahl as-Sunnat means to demolish the right religion, Islam, which Hadrat Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) brought from Allahu ta'ala, for, Ahl as-Sunnat are those Muslims who walk on the path of as-Sahabat al-kiram (radi-Allahu 'anhum). The path of as-Sahabat al-kiram is the path of Hadrat Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam), who, in the hadith, "My Companions are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them you will find the right way," orders us to follow as-Sahabat al-kiram.

Taqlid (following, adapting oneself to) is done in two respects. First is the following in respect of belief ('itiqad, iman). Second is the following in respect of actions to be done (a'mal). To follow as-Sahabat al-kiram means to follow them in respect of the facts to be believed. In other words, it is to believe as they did. Those Muslims who believe as as-Sahabat al-kiram are called Ahl as-Sunnat. In respect of practices, that is, in each of those actions that are to be done or avoided, it is not necessary to follow all as-Sahabat al-kiram since it is impossible. It cannot be known how as-Sahabat al-kiram did every action. Moreover, many matters did not exist in their time and appeared afterwards. The father of Ahl as-Sunnat was Hadrat al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih). All the four madhhabs have believed what he had explained and what he had learned from as-Sahabat al-kiram. Al-Imam al-azam was a contemporary of some Sahabis. He learned much from them. And he learned further through his other teachers. That al-Imam ash-Shafi'i and Imam Malik had different comments on a few matters concerning belief does not mean that they disagreed with al-Imam al-azam. It was because each of them expressed what they themselves understood from al-Imam al-azam's word. The essence of their words is the same. Their ways of explaining are different. We believe and love all the four aimmat al-madhahib.

A big trick of the la-madhhabi people is their writing about the badness of the difference in those subjects concerning belief and trying to smear this badness on to the difference among the four madhhabs. It is very bad to be broken into groups concerning iman. He who dissents from Ahl as-Sunnat in iman becomes either a kafir (disbeliever) or a heretic (a man of bidat in belief). It is stated in the hadiths of the Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) that both kinds of people will go to Hell. A kafir will remain in Hell eternally while a heretic will later go to Paradise.

Some of those who have dissented from Ahl as-Sunnat have become kafirs, but pass themselves off as Muslims. They are of two kinds. Those of the first kind have depended upon their intellect and points of view in interpreting the Qur'an al-karim and the Hadith ash-Sharif so much so that their errors have driven them to kufr (disbelief). They think of themselves as followers of the right path and believe that they are true Muslims. They cannot understand that their iman has gone away. They are called "mulhids." Those of the second kind have already disbelieved Islam and are hostile to Islam. In order to demolish Islam from within by deceiving Muslims, they pretend to be Muslims. In order to mix their lies and slanders with the religion, they give wrong, corrupt meanings to ayats, hadiths and scientific teachings. These insidious unbelievers are called "zindiqs." The freemasons occupying religious posts in Egypt and the so-called Socialist Muslims, who have appeared recently, are zindiqs. They are also called "bigots of science" or "religion reformers."

The Qur'an al-karim and the Hadith ash-Sharif declare that it is bad to be broken into groups in respect of iman and prohibit this faction strictly. They command Muslims to be united in one single iman. The faction prohibited in the Qur'an al-karim and the Hadith ash-Sharif is the faction in respect of iman. As a matter of fact, all prophets ('alaihimu 's-salam) revealed the same iman. From Adam ('alaihi 's-salam), the first prophet, to the last man, the iman of all believers is the same. Zindiqs and mulhids say that those ayats and hadiths which condemn and prohibit breaking in iman refer to the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat. Whereas, the Qur'an al-karim commands the differentiation of the four madhhabs. The Hadith ash-Sharif states that this difference is Allahu ta'ala's compassion upon Muslims.

It is an utterly loathsome, very base lie and slander to relate the Mongolian invasion of the Muslim countries and the destruction of and bloodshed in Baghdad to the "Hanafi-Shafi'i disputes," which never took place in the past and which will never take place in future. These two madhhabs have the same iman and love each other. They believe that they are brothers and know the insignificant difference between them concerning a'mal (acts) or 'ibadat (practices) is Allahu ta'ala's compassion. They believe that this difference is a facility. If a Muslim belonging to a madhhab encounters a difficulty in doing an act in his madhhab, he does it in accordance with one of the other three madhhabs and thus avoids the difficulty. Books of the four madhhabs unanimously recommend this facility and note some occasions. Scholars of the four madhhabs explained and wrote the evidences and documents of their own madhhabs not in order to attack or -Allah forfend- to slander one another, but with a view to defending Ahl as-Sunnat against the la-madhhabi people and to preserve the confidence of their followers. They wrote so and said that one could follow another madhhab when in difficulty. The la-madhhabi, that is, the mulhids and zindiqs, finding no other grounds for attacking Ahl as-Sunnat, have been meddling with and misinterpreting these writings which are right and correct.

As for the Tatars' and Mongols' invading Muslim countries, history books write its causes clearly. For example, Ahmad Jawdad Pasha wrote:

"Musta'sim, the last 'Abbasid Caliph, was a very pious Sunni. But his vizier, Ibn Alqami was la-madhhabi and disloyal to him. The administration of the State was in his hands. He had the idea of overthrowing the 'Abbasid state and establishing another State. He wished for Baghdad to be captured by the Mongol ruler Hulagu, for whom he wanted to become the vizier. He provoked him into coming to Iraq. Writing a harsh reply to a letter from Hulagu, he incited him. Nasir ad-din Tusi, another la-madhhabi heretic, was Hulagu's counsellor. He, too, incited him to capture Baghdad. The intrigues were played in the hands of these two heretics. Hulagu was made to advance upon Baghdad. The Caliph's army of about twenty thousand could not stand against the arrows of two hundred thousand Tatars. Hulagu assaulted Baghdad with naphtha fires and catapult stones. After a fifty-day siege, Ibn Alqami, under the pretext of making peace, went to Hulagu and made an agreement with him. Then, coming back to the Caliph he said that if they surrendered they would be set free. The Caliph believed him and surrendered to Hulagu on the twentieth of Muharram in 656 A.H. (1258). He was executed together with those who were with him. More than four hundred thousand Muslims were put to the sword. Millions of Islamic books were thrown into the Tigris. The lovely city turned into a ruin. The Khirkat as-Saada (the mantle of the Prophet)[The Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) gave some of his mantles to some Muslims, from whom the caliphs bought them for large sums of gold. Two of them still exist in Istanbul.] and the 'Asa an-Nabawi (the short stick the Prophet usually had with him) were burned and the ashes were thrown into the Tigris. The five-hundred-and-twenty-four-year-old 'Abbasid State was annihilated. Ibn Alqami was not given any position and died in abasement the same year. That year, 'Uthman Ghazi, founder of the Ottoman Empire, was born in the town of Soghut." [Qisas-i Anbiya' (History of the Prophets), p. 890.] As it is seen, the Mongols' ruining the Muslim countries was caused by a la-madhhabi's treachery against Ahl as-Sunnat. There has been no dispute between the Hanafis and the Shafi'is; Muslims belonging to the four madhhabs have loved one another as brothers. This base slander, which was made against Ahl as-Sunnat by Rashid Rida, was repeated by the reformer named Sayyid Qutb, too, yet he is given the necessary answer well documentedly in the book The Religion Reformers in Islam.