26 - Through the religion reformer, Rashid Rida, says:

"I do not deny the virtue and knowledge possessed by the imams who were mujtahids. Their virtue and knowledge were beyond praise and glorification. But, before the mujtahids, every Muslim used to ask for documentary evidence. Those who came later ignored the documentary evidence and exalted the mujtahid imams as high as prophets. They even preferred the mujtahid's word to a hadith. They said that the hadith could be mansukh (said by the Prophet at his early age, but changed by himself later) or there could be another hadith in their imam's view. The mujtahids did not find it right to act in accordance with the words of the persons who could possibly go wrong or who could not know the matter and who were not safe from errors, and to lay aside the hadith of the Prophet, who was free from error. The muqallids dissented from the Qur'an, too, which is the evident guide and the absolute document. They said that it was not permissible to learn the religion from the Qur'an and that only mujtahids could understand the meaning of the Qur'an. They claimed that it was not permissible to ignore the mujtahid's word and to act in accordance with the Qur'an. They said that it was not permissible to say, 'Allah says so,' or 'Rasulullah says so,' and that we should say, 'The fiqh scholar has understood it so.' There is not a branch of knowledge which might exceed, with all its subjects, the capacity of most people and which can be understood only by certain people of certain times. It is a requirement of the Divine Law that the later scholars should be more advanced than the earlier ones, for, the starting point of the later ones is where the earlier ones have left off. The Qur'an and the Hadith are more understandable than the books of fiqh. A person who has learned Arabic well understands them more easily. Isn't Allahu ta'ala able to explain His religion more explicitly than the men of fiqh? Rasulullah understood what Allah meant better than anybody else, and he explained it clearly and communicated everything.

"If most people had been incapable of deriving rules from the Book and the Sunnat, all the people would not be held liable for these rules. One should know what one believes together with its proofs. Allah disapproves of the taqlid and muqallids. He declares that they will not be forgiven by imitating their fathers and grandfathers. To understand that part of the religion concerning fiqh from its documents is easier than understanding the part concerning iman. Allahu ta'ala holds us liable for the difficult one. Is it ever possible that He will not hold us liable for the easy one?

"Prophets did not err, but mujtahids might have made errors. Mujtahids expanded the religion and made it several times as much as it was. They drove Muslims into trouble. There cannot be employed any qiyas in the field of 'ibadat; nor can one add anything to 'ibadat. [However], qiyas and istihsan (approval of facility) can be employed in judicial decisions. The mujtahids, too, prohibited men from taqlid."

In his sophisms, the religion reformer contradicts himself time and again. Employing logic in any branch of knowledge requires having some knowledge of that branch. The intrigues played with a bare reasoning by those who do not understand the basic knowledge of Islam do not give any result but rather bring disgrace upon themselves. It is true that those Muslims preceding the mujtahids, that is, as-Sahabat al-kiram, asked for documents; they did not follow one another. But they were all mujtahids. They were the people of the first century praised and lauded by Rasulullah (sall-allahu 'alaihi wa sallam). All as-Sahabat al-kiram and many of the Tabiin were mujtahids. It was necessary for a mujtahid to act in accordance with what he understood, and it was not permissible for him to follow another mujtahid. A Muslim simply does not say, "Those who came later exalted the mujtahids as high as prophets," nor does he claim that they even held them superior. For this statement stigmatizes billions of Muslims who have belonged to the four madhhabs as disbelievers. He who says or writes about a Muslim that he is a disbeliever becomes a disbeliever himself. It is even a greater slander to accuse muqallids of dissenting from the Qur'an al-karim. The religion reformers should know very well that a madhhab means the way of the Book and the Sunnat. He who follows an imam al-madhhab believes that he follows the Qur'an al-karim and Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam). No Muslim says, "It is not permissible to ignore the mujtahid's word and to act in accordance with the Qur'an," nor has any Muslim ever said so. This is one of the abominable slanders made by religion reformers, freemasons and zindiqs against pure Muslims. Every Muslim says, "I want to adapt myself to the Qur'an al-karim and the Hadith ash-Sharif, but I myself cannot draw conclusions from them. I cannot depend on or follow the rules which I understand. I depend on and follow what the imam al-madhhab understood, for, he was more learned than I am. He knew the eight main branches of knowledge and the twelve subsidiary branches better than I do. He feared Allahu ta'ala more than I do. He did not draw conclusions from the Qur'an al-karim out of his own understanding but learned from as-Sahabat al-kiram the meanings which had been given by Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam). I fear much because of the hadith ash-Sharif, 'He who derives meanings out of his own understanding becomes a disbeliever.' In fact, there were differences between the rules derived from the Qur'an al-karim and the Hadith ash-Sharif by those great scholars whose knowledge, goodness and taqwa, as declared in many hadiths, were very superior to those of their successors. If it had been easy to derive rules, they all would have inferred the same." How could an ignoramus ever be right to say, "Allahu ta'ala says so," or "Rasulullah says so"? Allahu ta'ala prohibited us to talk so. Even the 'ulama' of tafsir and the aimmat al-madhhahib did not dare to say these words; after explaining what they understood, they always said, "This is what I understand. Allahu ta'ala knows the truth of it." Even as-Sahabat al-kiram used to have difficulty in understanding the meaning of the Qur'an al-karim and asked Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam). So it is clear how ignorant and stupid a day-dream the religion reformer has been pursuing.

The statement, "Later scholars should be more advanced than the earlier ones," is true when we refer to experimental sciences. Concerning the knowledge of Islam, however, Rasulullah's (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) hadith ash-Sharif is valid: "Each century will be worse than the one preceding it. This will be so until Doomsday." This hadith ash-Sharif is valid also when the scientists' personality and their ways of using the science and its products are in question. This principle is certainly true for the majority, and there has been exceptions in every century. The religion reformer not only mistakes experimental knowledge and religious knowledge for each other but also supposes that science and scientist are the same. Science has surely made advancements, but this does not mean that scientists also are advanced. Among the later ones, those who are more retrogressive, more corrupt and baser than the earlier ones are not less in number.

Arabic is necessary for understanding the Qur'an al-karim and the Hadith ash-Sharif, but Arabic alone is not enough. If it were enough, each of the Arab Christians in Beirut would have consequently been an Islamic scholar since among them there were those who had a deeper knowledge of Arabic than the Egyptian religion reformers and those who were experts in Arabic, as well as those who compiled dictionaries like Al-munjid. None of them was able to understand the Qur'an al-karim or even to attain to the honor of being a Muslim. The Qur'an al-karim summons people to happiness, to iman, to Islam. If they had understood this invitation, they would have accepted it. Their disbelief does not show that Allahu ta'ala's invitation is not clear or eloquent. The Qur'an al-karim addresses as-Sahabat al-kiram, their lightsome hearts, and unerring reason. It invites by means of the Quraish language. It does not speak the Arabic taught in the Jami' al-Azhar or Beirut. As-Sahabat al-kiram matured in Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) sohbat (companionship, company) and attained to the perfection which could not be reached by others among the Umma; yet their understanding the Qur'an al-karim was different from one another's. There were also points they could not understand. Since those great people were incapable, how will the case be with such people like us who understand slang Arabic? Our aimmat al-madhahib did not attempt to derive meanings from the Qur'an al-karim, but, regarding themselves as incapable of doing this, strived to learn, by asking as-Sahabat al-kiram, the way Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) had explained the Qur'an al-karim. Also, they preferred what as-Sahabat al-kiram had understood to what they themselves understood. Al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa (d. 150/767, rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) would prefer the word of any Sahabi to his own understanding. When he found no information coming from Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) or from as-Sahabat al-kiram, he had to employ ijtihad. Islamic scholars in each century have trembled before the greatness, superiority, wara' and taqwa of their predecessors and have held fast to their words as proofs and documents. Islam is a religion of manners (adab) and modesty (tawadu'). An ignoramus behaves daringly and thinks of himself as an Islamic scholar, but a scholar humbles himself. He who humbles himself will be exalted by Allahu ta'ala. Each of the chiefs of the seventy-two groups, who will go to Hell as it was prophesied by Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam), was a profound scholar, too; yet, they depended on their knowledge too much and attempted to derive meanings from the Book and the Sunnat. Therefore, they could not attain to the honor of adapting themselves to as-Sahabat al-kiram and deviated from the right path. They caused millions of Muslims to go to Hell. The 'ulama' of the four madhhabs did not use their deep knowledge in deriving rules from the Qur'an al-karim; they did not dare to do this. They used it in understanding what Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) as-Sahabat al-kiram had said. Allahu ta'ala does not command people to derive rules from the Qur'an al-karim. He commands them to obey and accept the rules brought by His Messenger ('alaihi 's-salam) and as-Sahabat al-kiram. The religion reformers' incapacity in understanding this subtlety has driven them to calamity. Allahu ta'ala's commands, "Obey My Messenger!" and "Adapt yourselves to My Messenger!" and Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) command, "Hold fast to the way of my companions!" are the documents of our word. If following the aimmat al-madhahib had meant abandoning Allahu ta'ala and His Messenger ('alaihi 's-salam) to become a creature of another creature, following as-Sahabat al-kiram would have meant the same. Since it was not so, Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) commanded it. He commanded people to believe briefly and to perform 'ibada as much as they saw him do. He never suggested that they should know the proofs. [Hadrat al-Imam al-Ghazali explained this in detail in his work "Kimya as-saada."] Allahu ta'ala disapproves of disbelievers imitating their parents, thus He commands them to give up disbelief and to have belief. He does not disapprove of imitating His Messenger ('alaihi 's-salam), but commands it. And Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) commands us to imitate his companions. It is bad to follow the wicked, but this should not prevent us from following the good people. As explained above, if it were easy to understand the documents of the part pertaining to iman, the Christian Arabs in Beirut would necessarily have iman easily. Since it was not easy to understand the documents of the principles that are to be believed, we were ordered to have iman without the need to understand the documents, and those who believed in this manner were called "Muminun" (believers, Muslims). If Allahu ta'ala had made Muslims liable also for learning and understanding the documents of the rules concerning 'ibadat, His Messenger ('alaihi 's-salam), too, would have suggested it. Whereas, as explained above, he never did.

By saying that prophets ('alaihimu 's-salam) never erred but mujtahids might have made mistakes, he supposes that the rules revealed by mujtahids are different from those revealed by the Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam). Whereas, a mujtahid or an imam al-madhhab was a great alim who spent his whole life studying day and night, searching and finding out the rules that had been conveyed by the Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) and by as-Sahabat al-kiram and who transmitted them to Muslims. No mujtahid ever added anything to any kind of 'ibadat. They said unanimously that it was a bidat and a great sin. There cannot be another slander as ugly and loathsome as accusing the mujtahids of something which they themselves prohibited. It is great ignorance and idiocy to say that mujtahids expanded the religion. It is answerable in no way but with a laugh. The religion does not expand, but the number of cases increases. It is a great service to Islam and a very valuable 'ibada to apply Islam to those cases which have appeared and developed during the course of time. And this has been and is still being the lot of the mujaddid imams.

A mujaddid does not have to be a mujtahid mutlaq. It is true that the four aimmat al-madhhahib prohibited taqlid. But they prohibited it for those scholars who were educated among their disciples and who had reached the grade of ijtihad. It is never permissible for any mujtahid to follow another mujtahid. This rule will be valid till Doomsday. But it does not apply to the ignoramuses and religion reformers who think of themselves as mujtahids. If a mouse think of itself as a lion and then meets a cat, it will realize that it has been wrong. But its mistake will cost it its life.

27 - In the seventh dialogue the religion reformer says:

"Who demoted the religion into this state of theoretical philosophy are the later Islamic scholars. They introduced some definitions and limitations. They divided it into sections. In fact, there were those who said that becoming a scholar of fiqh required twenty years of study. Whereas, it had taken that much time to establish all the branches or the rules of the religion. It had not taken even two years to establish the fiqh. I want modern Muslims to be like the Muslims of the time of the Four Caliphs. Therefore, it is the duty of every Muslim to perform the 'ibadat on which there has been unanimity. It is not necessary to perform the controversial ones even if they were said to be fard. On such matters, one should act upon one's studying its evidences or act in accord with a narration (qawl), if he prefers this narration because it suits his case. But he should not blame others for not doing as he does. It is not proper to perform salat behind different imams belonging to different madhhabs in the same mosque at the same time. In short, we should do what as-Sahaba did, and we should not do what they did not do. We should take our option in doing controversial affairs. We should employ qiyas on what as-Sahaba did not discourse. On controversial affairs everybody should act in accordance with the hadiths which he believes to be sahih."

He attacks Islamic scholars with the accusation of turning Islam into philosophy by dividing it and introducing definitions and limitations into it. Whereas, the scholars of kalam have nothing to do with philosophy, for, they are much higher than philosophers. But, during the time of the Umayyads, Muslims who spread over the three continents met various groups of non-Muslims, and also such groups as the Khawarij and the Mutazila appeared, who tried to mislead the new Muslims. The scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat had to protect Muslims' faith and to answer various religions, philosophers and zindiqs. Preparing answers refuting their philosophy as they should deserve, they promulgated the knowledge of kalam far and wide, thus preventing the youth from being deceived. While it is an obligation for us to praise them for their glorious and honorable services and to thank them and send prayers on them, does it become a Muslim to attempt to speak ill of them for this reason? Because as-Sahabat al-kiram were very wise and intelligent and had such a guide as Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam), the Islamic religion was established in twenty years. After the second century of Islam, the Muslims who had then spread over the three continents did not have either of these conditions. The time a disciple would need to learn from his master became longer. Yet, it was said by the scholars that it was still possible to learn in a short time if the master would be tender and skillful and the disciple intelligent and diligent, and history books reveal that there came those who could fulfill these conditions. In addition, the darkness of bidats and sins blackened the hearts and weakened the memories and, as a result, caused the duration of education to become longer. Even Hadrat al-Imam ash-Shafi'i complained to his master Waki' about the weakness of his memory. The answer he was given as stated in the following couplet reveals this fact:

"Shakawtul Waki'a min su-i hifzi,
Fa-awsani ila tark-il ma'asi." ["I complained to Waqi of my bad memory. He recommended me not to commit any sins."

]

The religion reformer says, on the one hand, that every Muslim should perform the 'ibadat which have been declared unanimously and, on the other hand, that he may not perform the controversial ones or he may perform them in accordance with any madhhab he likes, that is, he may unify or mix the madhhabs. His words contradict each other, for, it was declared unanimously that it was wrong to mix the madhhabs. Mixing the madhhabs is disobedience to this unanimous declaration. Therefore, the religion reformer's worship will not be correct and acceptable according to himself, either. Also, it is incorrect to say that as-Sahabat al-kiram did not do the controversial affairs and that there would not have been any controversial ones if they had done them; for, there were also those affairs on which there was disagreement because the way as-Sahabat al-kiram had done them was not understood. Moreover, it is incompatible with the unanimous declaration of the scholars to say that one should lay imam al-madhhab's words aside and follow one's own interpretation of a Hadith ash-Sharif, which causes one to think of oneself as a mujtahid superior to imam al-madhhab, an attribute peculiar to the Devil.

28 - The religion reformer says in the eighth dialogue:

"The men of taqlid are the greatest enemies of the lights of thinking, research and documenting which make for the indispensable part of the natural disposition created [in man] by Allah."

Such an open lie and slander is very puzzling, indeed. Which faqih prohibited thinking, researching and looking for documentary evidence? Which Muslim is hostile against these? He should have given an example. Which of his lies or slanders from the beginning of his book has he documented so that he would document his one now? It is the religion reformer's very self which is hostile against documentation. It would be illogical to ask such a person, who puts forward what he has planned with his short sight and false reasoning as religious knowledge, to think or to supply proofs. Though it would be proper to think of the saying, "Silence is the best answer to be given to an idiot," and to hold one's tongue, a brief answer is necessary to protect the youth against the harms of such a person: All the 'ulama' of fiqh have said that it is not necessary for a muqallid to look for documentary evidences, for, the new Muslims among the Tabiin used to do everything by asking as-Sahabat al-kiram, never demanding any proofs. Moreover there has been no scholar who prohibited searching for proofs. For this reason, all the aimmat al-madhhahib wrote documents at full length and made it easy for those who wanted to see the documents.

29 - He says:

"The ignorant, as the Muslims of the first century did, shall ask any matter they do not know from a person they trust. They shall ask about an ayat or hadith which is related to it, learn its meaning, and act in accordance with it."

Good Gracious! What knowledge! What reasoning! It was true that as-Sahabat al-kiram used to do so, but they all had become higher than the aimmat al-madhhahib by being matured in the sohbat of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam). They were praised and glorified in the hadith ash-Sharif, "My companions are like the stars in the sky. You will attain to the right path if you follow any of them!" They all could understand the Divine Meaning. In case of a matter not stated clearly in the Book or in the Sunnat, they used to search through ayats and hadiths for a documentary solution, employ ijtihad and draw a conclusion. It was not necessary or permissible for them to follow (taqlid) one another. Our aimmat al-madhahib also did as as-Sahabat al-kiram had done. Like them, they searched for and found out evidences and drew conclusions from them. Thus, they parted into madhhabs in respect of 'ibadat. In this way, they carried out Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) command, for, he had declared, "Adapt yourselves to my companions!" Since the new Muslims among the Tabiin did not ask as-Sahabat al-kiram for documentary evidences, it is not necessary for the ignorant like us to look for the proofs of the aimmat al-madhahib. We learn the commands of Allahu ta'ala by reading the books written by the aimmat al-madhahib. These books are the explanations of the Qur'an al-karim. See this man with a religious post who likens an ignorant village shepherd to a Sahabi and recommends him to go to town frequently, look for ayats and hadiths, interpret them by himself and employ ijtihad! While there is the facility of following an imam al-madhhab, he gets the poor man into such difficulties!

30 - The religion reformer, slighting thousands of Islamic scholars, continues as follows:

"The usul scholars' deducing the necessity of the taqlid from the ayat, 'If you do not know, ask those who know!' is a fruitless and unsound deduction and reasoning. The ayat should not be commanding the taqlid to everybody since the taqlid was not permissible in the events or for the person that caused the ayat's revelation. In this ayat, Allahu ta'ala commanded the polytheist Arabs to ask the Ahl al-kitab (believers in Holy Books) if prophets were angels or human beings. Why should this question be taqlid while it does not mean to act in accordance with someone else's opinion or ijtihad without evidences? Furthermore, this matter pertains to belief. You, too, admit the fact that taqlid is not permissible in this respect. The Qur'an prophesies that on the Day of Resurrection the chiefs of the disbelievers will run away from those who followed them. Isn't this information a sign of the fact that those who follow the persons whom Allah has not ordered us to follow will not be excused by Allah? Because Muslims considered some people as witnesses and turned away from the Qur'an, we suffered disasters. The imams whom they followed will run away from them on the Day of Resurrection, for, the great imams and mujtahids prohibited taqlid. You have been accustomed to taking the words of human beings, not the words of Allah and the Prophet, as proofs."

After writing these through the mouth of the religion reformer, Rashid Rida, in order to deceive his readers, writes that the preacher likes the words of the religion reformer, that he has been wrong to think of religion reformers as ignorant, and that now he appreciates the religion reformer after seeing that he is so learned.

Our Prophet (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) deduced from this ayat that the taqlid of a mujtahid was necessary when carrying out every kind of action or 'ibada. And as-Sahabat al-kiram taught the new Muslims among the Tabiin only how to carry out the 'ibadat the way they themselves had learned from Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam). They did not command them to search for proofs. They deemed it sufficient for them to imitate without knowing proofs. Our aimmat al-madhahib, who followed in the footsteps of the as-Sahabat al-kiram in everything they did, followed them in this respect, too. There is no difference between saying that the aimmat al-madhahib prohibited taqlid and saying that they deviated from the path of as-Sahabat al-kiram. It was true that the as-Sahabat al-kiram and the aimmat al-madhahib looked for documentary evidences, and they did not follow others' ijtihad. But they permitted the non-mujtahids to follow mujtahids. The reformer's claim that the ayat did not command disbelievers to practice taqlid is to smother the matter in sophistry. Islamic scholars have not said that disbelievers were commanded to practice taqlid; why, then, should the religion reformer be acknowledged to be right for these words of his? Allahu ta'ala commanded those who did not know to ask from those who knew. And Islamic scholars, by inferencing from the ayat, have said that Muslims should ask those who know about how to do what they are going to do. This is the whole subject. There is no such thing as taqlid or searching for evidences here. The religion reformer, inserting these in, endeavors to prove himself right. It is a different subject to follow an alim without seeing the documentary evidences in something which one will do. And this different subject automatically originates from the former subject: asking someone who knows about the things that should be done or that should not be done, and doing as one learns from him, means to follow (taqlid) him. Whereas, the case is not so with the imitation concerning iman. Since iman does not settle in the heart right after asking and learning the facts to be believed, it is not called the taqlid. After learning iman, one thinks over, approves and admits it, and then it gets established in his heart. And this is the iman which Islam requires. The unconsidered iman that is formed after learning without thinking or approving is imitative and without proof. Such is the case with the disbelievers who become disbelievers by imitating their parents. Islam requires people to have iman by thinking it over, seeing its evidences and deciding for themselves. Disbelievers' disbelief is not formed by themselves; it has been adopted from their parents and it has become their own quality. As it is seen, taqlid has no connection with iman. Because taqlid is not permissible in iman, those who have been followed in this respect will run away on the Day of Resurrection from those who have followed them. Because taqlid in 'ibadat is a requirement of Allahu ta'ala's command, both those who teach and those who learn will go to Paradise.

The religion reformer's saying that Muslims considered some people as witnesses and turned away from the Qur'an al-karim is a very base and disgusting demeaning. It means to display Muslims as disbelievers. Since his statement is mendacious and slanderous, and since he calls Muslims disbelievers, he himself becomes a disbeliever.

Muslims do not follow the aimmat al-madhahib themselves. Learning from them what Allahu ta'ala and the Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) meant, they cling to the commands of Allahu ta'ala and Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam). Mujtahids themselves are each a medium, a transmitter. Allahu ta'ala declares, "look for a medium to attain to My Love!" Muslims, following Allahu ta'ala's command, make use of the aimmat al-madhahib as mediums. To follow the aimmat al-madhahib, to adapt oneself to them does not mean to do their personal commands, but it means to follow what they conveyed from the Book and the Sunnat.

How could the discordant matters among the four madhhabs ever be abandoned? It is impossible. One of the discordant opinions on a matter certainly coincides with Allahu ta'ala's command. For example, bleeding breaks a wudu' (ritual ablution) according to the Hanafi madhhab, but it does not according to the Shafi'i madhhab. One of these rules is, for sure, what Allahu ta'ala meant. We should always do one of them and say that it is what He meant. The one who does what Allahu ta'ala meant hits the right way and wins. The Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) declared that the mujtahid who could not understand exactly what Allahu ta'ala meant would also be given thawab. During the time of our master Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam), there were many such matters of ijtihad. There are many hadiths stating that the mujtahid who could not hit the right way will also be given thawab. The important thing here is that this thawab is meant for mujtahids only. According to the above ayat, which is in Surat an-Nahl, those who follow mujtahids will be given that much thawab, too. Religion reformers who do not follow mujtahids will not be given this thawab. They do not obey Allahu ta'ala's command. They will go to Hell. The hadith ash-Sharif, "None of the 'ibadat of a holder of bidat is acceptable," is the proof of this word of ours.

Some scholars of usul al-fiqh said, "Following a mujtahid requires one's trust and belief in his knowledge; the ayat, 'Ask those who know,' reveals this fact. A person who follows a mujtahid in one matter and follows another mujtahid in another matter will not have believed or trusted in the former mujtahid. Nor will his performance of the former matter be acceptable. If he says that he believes and trusts in both of them, his words are not believable." [See for detail the translation from Al-mizan al-kubra in article 42.] As in many respects, Rashid Rida's attitude and conduct have contradicted his words in this respect, too. So says the poet:

"Action is man's mirror, words don't ever count;
In his work appears the extent of his mind."