In this book, the heretical ideas of some reformers from outside Turkey, are set up in paragraphs, which they have written against Islam, and necessary answers are given to them. Thus, sixty-three paragraphs have been formed. 'Reform' means 'to return something corrupted to a former state, to correct.' 'Religion reformer' means 'he who renews, renovates the religion.' Today, however, those bigots who try to change and demolish Islam from the inside call themselves "religion reformers'. Therefore, there are three groups of reformers in the religion which are told about in detail in the forty-second paragraph, in which it will be seen that it is wrong and out of place to use this word for Islam. [Please see page 189 in the Turkish book Faideli Bilgiler (Useful Information).]

1 - The reformer, in order to deceive the youth, pretends to be a man of religion; he says:

"In accordance with the modern age, improvements in our religion also should be done. Many superstitions, which does not have place in the religion, have been mixed with Islam later. It is necessary to clear them off and return our religion to its earliest true, pure state."

It is obvious that for the recent two or three hundred years there has been a standstill, even a decline in Muslims. Seeing this decline, it is very unjust, very wrong to say that Islam corrupts. This decline happened because Muslims did not trust the religion and they have been slack in carrying out its commands. Unlike other religions, Islam has not been mixed with superstitions. Maybe the ignorant have wrong beliefs and words. Yet these do not change what is declared in the fundamental books of Islam. These books declare the sayings of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and the knowledge coming from his Sahabis. All of them were written by the most efficient, exalted scholars. They have been approved unanimously by all Islamic scholars. For centuries, no alteration has taken place in any of them. That the words, books and magazines of the ignorant are erroneous cannot be grounds for attributing defect or stain to these fundamental books of Islam.

To attempt to alter these fundamental books in accord with the fashion and situation in each century means to make up a new religion for each century. Attempt to make such alterations as if by depending on and adapting them to the Qur'an al-karim and the Hadith ash-Sharif is a sign of not knowing the Qur'an al-karim and the Hadith ash-Sharif, of misconception of Islam. To presume that the commands and prohibitions in Islam will change in accordance with the time means to disbelieve the reality of Islam. The Qur'an al-karim says, "Muslims command the things that are maruf." Ziya Gokalb and similar ferocious reformers, who attacked the Qur'an al-karim and Islam impudently, attempted to alter Islam according to customs and fashion by saying 'convention and custom' for the word 'maruf', thus ingratiating themselves with their freemason masters and capturing posts. In order to get what was mundane, they sold their faith. Ziya Gokalb was given the membership of the Central Committee of the Union Party as a recompense for this service of his. If Islam, as a he said, gave place to customs, even at its beginning, it would not have prohibited the bad customs of the ignorant Arabs and would have tolerated idolatry, which was the most valuable custom of that time and which had gone so far as into the Kaba.

Islamic religion is built upon knowledge and is conformable to reason in every respect. On affairs declared inexplicitly in the Qur'an al-karim and the Hadith ash-Sharif, to pass new rules compatible with reason and knowledge, that is, to make qiyas or ijtihad, is one of the main sources of Islam. Yet this is the job of the one who is Muslim possessing the necessary knowledge. If the reformers, instead of meddling with the fundamental books, thought of annihilating superstitions which have become established among the ignorant, nothing would be said against them. They would be serving Islam. But, if we are supposed to believe that they bear such good thoughts, first they have to prove that they are real and sincere Muslims. A non-Muslim's pretending to be Muslim and attempting to attack us with our own weapon is very unjust, shameful and disgraceful of him. The religion reformers should not only pretend or claim to be Muslims, but also prove to be Muslims. It is not permissible for a Muslim to feign irreligiousness, unless there is the fear of death. As for the irreligious reformers, does 'irreligiousness' mean 'hypocrisy, mendacity' so that they pretend to be Muslims when it suits their purpose? It is not permissible to question a person who says, "I am Muslim," and we have to know him as our brother-in-Islam; but he should not play tricks with our faith. If we see him speak ill of and belittle the fundamental knowledge of our religion, it will be not only permissible but also necessary to question him and to call him to account. We do not force the reformers to adapt themselves to our religion or madhhab but only want them to say frankly whether they are Muslims or not and their deeds to be in agreement with their words, for Islam has certain and unchangeable rules and Muslims have to talk in conformity with these rules. While some people who say that they are Muslims do not regard it a guilt that they dissent from Islam by holding the basic knowledge of Islam of no account and making fun of it, they get angry when they are told that they have dissented from Islam. They want Islam to be attacked and the attacker should not be told that he attacks Islam and becomes a disbeliever; it will be free to attack Islam, and those who do so should not be told anything! They insult those who refute them in such terms as "retrogressive" or "fanatic" which have been made up by communists. And about those who, like themselves, attack the religion, they say "modern, enlightened." The truth is that they themselves are fanatics. Those who pretend to be men of religion are the bigots of religion and those who attack Islam as scientists are the bigots of science.

Alteration in the basic knowledge and books of Islam and to adapt them to the present time will be the defilement of Islam. A Muslim is the person who believes and reveres this basic knowledge and who has promised not to attempt to alter it. And 'democracy, freedom and secularism' do not come to mean 'not keeping one's word or giving up one's belief'. Islam does not command that the non-Muslim compatriots should be forced to be Muslims. Is there a democracy more egalitarian than this?

The bigots of science, the one group of our insidious enemies, accepting all the customs, fashions and immoral, exploiting, crushing movements in Europe and America, try to spread them among youngsters. As for Islam, they never mention it as if it were a guilt that should be covered, or they regard it heavy and horrible as if it were a crushing burden. But some others say that religion is necessary for possessing a sound society and unity and it should be adapted to the present time and Islam should be cleared of superstitions. However, there is no superstition in the books of the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars. There are superstitions amongst the ignorant of Islam. And for clearing these off, it is necessary to disseminate the Ahl as-Sunnat books and teach them to the youth. When the reforms these bigots want in Islam seem harmful to basic knowledge of Islam, we should rebut them showing proofs among ayats and hadiths and say, "You have no right to make alterations in Muslims' religion as if it were your own possession." The bigots in religion want to blemish the great Muslim scholars and replace them. They tread on the basic knowledge of Islam and on the Muslim scholars who collected it and spread it all over the world.

Musa Jarullah Baykiyev of Kazan, Russia, who appeared under the masks of a reformer, wrote in his book published in the time of the Ottomans:

"Islam, which Allah sent through His Prophet, was established upon knowledge. It corrected the human life and established a social order. It defined the civilized actions one by one. It set up a professional order based upon justice and advantage. Such a professional order strengthened Islam. It spread over continents. Later in Iran, enjoyment, revel and dissipation spread among Muslims. After this, a greater instigation came forth. The Greek philosophy, which was based upon only thoughts and theories, was translated. Study on work and matter ceased. Islam came to a theoretical state based upon delusion and phantom. The pure iman of Muslims was all mixed up with gossips called 'ilm al-kalam. Thus, social, economic and civil studies ceased. In mosques, madrasas, houses and everywhere, time was passed with trivial, useless theories and thoughts. Books of kalam slandering the positive science were disseminated everywhere. Useless thoughts, unnecessary articles were considered as of Islam. Is there a world of value a useful idea in al-Ghazali's book Tahafut or in the philosopher Ibn ar-Rushd's answer to it? Who will ever mention or write today the deliriums in the books of Nasir ad-din at-Tusi, a geometry and astronomy scholar, or in the books of thousands of people praising or slandering him? Is there anything which could be said to be Islamic in the innumerable books of the scholars of the Ashari madhhab telling about Allah's attributes and deeds and human will, or in the shameless criticisms between Shiites and Sunnis? Is there anything of reason, of idea or of Islam in at-Taftazani's books or in their world-wide commentaries and annotations or in the books of fiqh, kalam, mantiq, usul, tafsir, nahw, sarf, hikma?"

These mendacities of the Russian Baykiyev have been written down over and over again and applauded at every opportunity by the religion reformers amongst us and this mendacious disbeliever has been called the "Luther of Islam". His slanders will be answered in the ninth paragraph below.

Another of the masked ideas of religion reformers and bigots of false diplomas is,

"The strongest, the most useful force for bringing people to goodness and union is religion. A nation without religion cannot survive."

But from the passwords leaking out of this sort of statements of theirs, it is understood that they do not believe in religion. For example, they say:

"The Orientals are very intelligent people. For six thousand years the sacred hands ruling the souls and morality of people have always risen in Central Asia. For the mankind in need of worship, the keen intellects of the East have created idols and left them as souvenirs. When the oriental intellects were unable to find opportunity for studying on matter, their imagination became very wide and brilliant. For this reason, poetry, philosophy, astronomy, spiritual knowledge, alchemy, sorcery, mujiza, karama and the like were given birth in the East and spread over the world. Nevertheless, since good nature and good thoughts are spiritual, there is nothing so useful as religion to strengthen them. Man cannot live without religion."

Though religion reformers do not believe that Islam is a religion sent by Allahu ta'ala through the Prophet, they say that it is necessary for the maintenance of ethics and social order and for promotion in worldly affairs. In other words, religion, to them, is to be believed for this world. They mean that though there is no real religion one might believe in a religion for having good manners and procuring social advantage. This belief will be superficial, but in order for it to be very useful, it should be believed in as if it were true.

They say, "It should be believed though superficially," most probably because they see that Europeans and Americans are very reverent to their faith.

Whatsoever it may be, the enemies of Islam, too, feel compelled to say that religion is necessary. For unless a force, which obliges people with its attraction and compels them to put their affairs in order, is made divine and its divinity spread, it remains weak.

Some others want to establish morals through knowledge, too. Knowledge presents morals as a virtue. But this has not proved to be more than theoretical and is not as effective as the hadith. "Salvation is in honesty only." It simply could not be said, "It is without foundation," about the religion, which is "so necessary, so useful." It simply is not right to pretend to believe something which is not believed. They are illogical, like taking the truth and the lie equal.

How could it ever be admitted that the religion which brings people to ecstasy and is so dominant over man's existence and morality be without foundation or made up by people? Are people to depend on the religion or is the religion to be made up by people? People's worshiping the things which they themselves have made up is heretical. Such heresy was present among the people who worshiped idols before Islam and it was the evidence of their being base and stupid.

The reformer says:

"The golden chain, that is, the idea of nationality, which has been discovered in recent centuries to tie people tightly and safely to one another, will replace the coarse chain, which will some day break. If, instead of brotherhood in religion, the concepts of nationalism and patriotism had been established, the youth would have existed."

If the modernist reformer believed in religion, he would not compare religion with nationalism or education, nor say "the coarse chain" about Islamic brotherhood while saying "the golden chain" about national unity. It is understood from the words of reformers that religion will correct the morality of the common people, who will be made to believe in not superficially but truly; in order to bind the people to themselves like a flock of sheep, they will give place to the religion; the people shall believe in the religion, but they themselves will not; they will be able to put the religion into a new mold every day; morality of the people will be corrected by means of religion and the irreligious modernists will not need good manners. Don't the reformers deem it necessary for themselves to have good manners?