The preceding Introduction was written ten years ago, during which time it has become
apparent to us that our words have had a positive effect on Muslim youth in guiding
them towards the obligation in matters of their Deen and worship to return to the
pure sources of Islaam: the Book and the Sunnah. Among them, there was an increase
in the ranks of of those who practised the Sunnah and devoted themselves to it,
- Praise be to Allaah - such that they became conspicuous for it. However, I still
found among some of them a steadfastness in failing to practise the Sunnah: not
due to any doubt about its obligation after reading the Qur'aanic verses and narrations
from the Imaams about going back to the Sunnah, but because of some objections and
misconceptions which they had heard from some muqallid shaikhs. Therefore, I decided
to mention these incorrect notions and refute them, so that perhaps ths would encourage
more people to practise the Sunnah and thus be among the Saved Sect, Allaah Willing.
Some of them say, "There is no doubt that it is obligatory to return to the guidance
of our Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) in the matters of our Deen, especially
in the recommended acts of worship such as Prayer, where there is no room for opinion
or ijtihaad, due to their immutable nature. However, we hardly hear any of the muqallid
shaikhs propounding this; in fact, we find them upholding difference of opinion,
which they regard as flexibility for the Ummah. Their proof for this is the hadeeth
which they repeatedly quote in such circumstances, when refuting the helpers of
the Sunnah, 'The difference of opinion (ikhtilaaf) among my Ummah is a mercy (rahmah)'.
It seems to us that this hadeeth contradicts the principles to which you invite
and based on which you have compiled this book and others. So, what do you say about
this hadeeth ?"
Answer: The answer is from two angles:
A) Firstly: This hadeeth is not authentic; in fact, it is false and without
foundation. 'Allaamah Subki said, "I have not come across an authentic or weak or
fabricated chain of narration for it", i.e. no chain of narrators exists for this
"hadeeth"!
It has also been related with the wordings: "... the difference of opinion among
my Companions is a mercy for you" and "My Companions are like the stars, so whichever
of them you follow, you will be guided." Both of these are not authentic: the former
is very feeble; the latter is fabricated. (See
Appendix 1)
B) Secondly: This hadeeth contradicts the Glorious Qur'aan, for the aayaat
forbidding division in the Deen and enjoining unity are too well-known to need reminding.
However, there is no harm in giving some of them by way of example: Allaah says,
"... and do not fall into disputes, lest you lose heart and your power depart"
1 ;
"And do not be among those join deities with Allaah, those who split up their
Deen and become sects - each party rejoicing with what it has !"
2;
"But they will not cease to differ, except those on whom your Lord bestows
His Mercy" 3.
Therefore, if those on whom your Lord has mercy do not differ, and the people of
falsehood differ, how can it make sense that differing is a mercy?!
Hence, it is established that this hadeeth is not authentic, neither in the chain
of narration, nor in meaning; therefore, it is clear and obvious that it cannot
be used to justify resistance towards acting on the Book and the Sunnah, which is
what our Imaams have commanded us anyway.
Others say, "If differing in the Deen is forbidden, what do you say about the differences
among the Companions and among the Imaams after them? Is there any distinction between
their differing and that of later generations ?"
Answer: Yes, there is a big difference between these two examples of differing,
which manifests itself in two ways: firstly, in cause; secondly, in effect.
A) As for the differing among the Companions, that was unavoidable, natural difference
of understanding: they did not differ by choice. Other factors of their time contributed
to this, necessitating difference of opinion, but these vanished after their era.4 This type of differing is impossible to totally
remove and such people cannot be blamed in the light of the above mentioned aayaat
because of the absence of the appropriate conditions, i.e. differing on purpose
and insisting on it.
However, as for the differing found among the muqallideen today, there is no overriding
excuse for it. To one of them, the proof from the Book and the Sunnah is shown,
which happens to support a Madhhab other than his usual one, so he puts the proof
aside for no other reason except that it is against his Madhhab. It is as though
his Madhhab is the original, or it is the Deen which Muhammad (sallallaahu 'alaihi
wa sallam) brought, while other Madhhabs are separate Deens which have been abrogated!
Others take the opposite extreme, regarding the Madhhabs - for all their differences
- as parallel codes of Law, as some of their later adherents explain5:
there is no harm in a Muslim taking what he likes from them and leaving what he
likes, because they are all valid codes of Law !
Both these categories of people justify their remaining divided by this false hadeeth,
"The differing among my Ummah is a mercy" - so many of them we hear using this as
evidence! Some of them give the reason behind this hadeeth and its purpose by saying
that it ensures flexibility for the Ummah! Apart from the fact that this "reason"
is contrary to the clear Qur'aanic verses and to the meanings of the Imaam's words
mentioned, there is also text fom some Imaams to refute it.
Ibn al-Qaasim said,
"I heard Maalik and Laith saying about the differing of the Companions of the Messenger
of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), 'It is not as people say: "There is flexibility
in it"; no, it is not like that, but it is a matter of some being mistaken and some
being correct'."6
Ashhab said,
"Maalik was asked about the person who accepted a hadeeth narrated by reliable people
in the authority of the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi
wa sallam): 'Do you see any flexibility there?' He said, 'No, by Allaah, so that
he may be on the truth. Truth can only be one. Two contradictory views, can both
be correct?! Truth and right are only one."7
Imaam Muzani, a companion of Imaam Shaafi'i said,
"The Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) indeed
differed, and some of them corrected others. Some scrutinised others' views and
found fault with them. If all their views had been correct, they would not have
done so.
'Umar ibn al-Khattab became angry at the dispute between Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Ibn
Mas'ood about prayer in a single garment. Ubayy said, 'Prayer in one garment is
good and fine; Ibn Mas'ood said, 'That is only if one does not have many clothes.'
So 'Umar came out in anger, saying, 'Two men from among the companions of the Messenger
of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), who are looked up to and learnt from,
disputing? Ubayy has spoken the truth and not cared about Ibn Mas'ood. But if I
hear anyone disputing about it after this I will do such-and-such to him'."8
Imaam Muzani also said,
"There is the one who allows differing and thinks that if two scholars make ijtihaad
on a problem and one says, 'Halaal', while the other says, 'Haraam', then both have
arrived at the truth with their ijtihad! It can be said to such a person, 'Is this
view of yours based on the sources or on qiyaas (analogy) ?' If he says, 'On the
sources', it can be said, 'How can it be based on the sources, when the Qur'aan
negates differing ?' And if he says, 'On analogy', it can be said, 'How can the
sources negate differing, and it be allowed for you to reason by analogy that differing
is allowed?! This is unacceptable to anyone intelligent, let alone to a man of learning."9
If it is said further: "What you have quoted from Imaam Maalik that truth is only
one, not plural, is contradicted by what is found in Al-Madkhal al-Fiqhi by Shaikh
Zarqaa' (1/89), "The Caliphs Abu Ja'far al-Mansoor and later ar- Rasheed proposed
to select the Madhhab of Imaam Maalik and his book Al-Muwatta' as the official code
of Law for the 'Abbaasi empire, but Maalik forbade them from this, saying, "Indeed,
the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) differed
in the non- fundamental issues and were scattered in various towns, but each of them
was correct."
I say: This incident of Imaam Maalik (rahimahullaah) is well- known, but his saying
at the end, "but each of them was correct" is one for which I find no basis in any
of the narrations or sources I have come across10,
by Allaah, except for one narration collected by Abu Nu'aim in Hilyah al- Awliyaa'
(6/332), but with a chain of narrators which includes al-Miqdaam ibn Daawood who
is classified among the weak narrators by Dhahabi in ad-Du'afaa'; not only this,
but the wording of it is, "... but each of them was correct in his own eyes."
Hence the phrase "in his own eyes" shows that the narration in Madkhal is fabricated;
indeed, how could it be otherwise, when it contradicts what has been reported on
reliable authority from Imaam Maalik that truth is only one and not plural, as we
have mentioned, and this is agreed on by all the Imaams of the Companions and the
Successors as well as the four Mujtahid Imaams and others. Ibn 'Abdul Barr says,
"If the conflicting views could both be right, the Salaf would not have corrected
each other's ijtihaad, judgments, and verdicts. Simple reasoning forbids that something
and its opposite can both be correct; as the fine saying goes,
To prove two opposites simultaneously is the most hideous absurity."11
If it is said further, "Given that this narration from Imaam Maalik is false, why
did he forbid al-Mansoor from bringing the people together on his book Al-Muwatta'
rather than acceding to the Caliph's wish ?"
I say: The best that I have found in answer to this is what Haafiz Ibn Katheer has
mentioned in his Sharh Ikhtisaar 'Uloom al-Hadeeth (p.31), that Imaam Maalik said,
"Indeed the people have come together on, and know of, things which we are not acquainted
with." This was part of the excellence of his wisdom and impartiality, as Ibn Katheer
(rahimahullaah) says.
Hence, it is proved that all differing is bad, not a mercy! However, one type of
differing is reprehensible, such as that of staunch followers of the Madhhabs, while
another type is not blameworthy, such as the differing of the Companions and the
Imaams who succeeded them - May Allaah raise us in their company, and give us the
capability to tread their path.
Therefore, it is clear that the differing of the Companions was not like that of
the muqallideen. Briefly: the Companions only differed when it was inevitable, but
they used to hate disputes, and would avoid them whenever possible; as for the muqallideen,
even though it is possible in a great many cases to avoid differing, they do not
agree nor strive towards unity; in fact, they uphold differing. Hence there is an
enormous gulf between these two types of people in their difference of opinion.
This was from the point of view of cause.
B) The difference in effect is more obvious.
The Companions (radi Allaahu 'anhum), despite their well- known differing in non-fundamental
issues, were extremely careful to preserve outward unity, staying well-away from
anything which would divide them and split their ranks. For example, there were
among them those who approved of saying the basmalah loudly (in prayer) and those
who did not; there were those who held that raising the hands (in prayer) was recommended
and those who did not; there were those who held that touching a woman nullified
ablution, and those who did not; - but despite all that, they would all pray together
behind one imaam, and none of them would disdain from praying behind an imaam due
to difference of opinion.
As for the muqallideen, their differing is totally opposite, for it has caused Muslims
to be divided inthe mightiest pillar of faith after the two testifications of faith:
none other than the Salaah (Prayer). They refuse to pray together behind one imaam,
arguing that the imaam's prayer is invalid, or at least detestable, for someone
of a different Madhhab. This we have heard and seen, as others beside us have seen12; how can it not be, when nowadays some famous
books of the Madhhabs rule such cases of invalidity or detestability. The result
of this has been that you find four Mihraabs (alcoves) in some large congregational
mosques, in which four imaams successively lead the Prayer, and you find people
waiting for their imaam while another imaam is already standing in Prayer!!!
In fact, to some muqallideen, the difference between the Madhhabs has reached a
worse state than that, such as a ban in marriage between Hanafees and Shaafi'is;
one well known Hanafi scholar, later nicknamed Mufti ath-Thaqalayn (The Mufti for
Humans and Jinn), issued a fatwaa allowing a Hanafi man to marry a Shaafi'i woman,
because "her position is like that of the People of the Book"13
! This implies - and implied meanings are acceptable to them - that the reverse
case is not allowed, i.e. a Hanafi woman marrying a Shaafi'i man, just as a Muslim
woman cannot marry a Jew or Christian?!!
These two examples, out of many, are enough to illustrate to anyone intelligent
the evil effects of the differing of the later generations and their insistence
upon it, unlike the differing of the earlier generations (the Salaf), which did
not have any adverse effect on the Ummah. Because of this, the latter are exempt
from the verses prohibiting division in the Deen, unlike the later generations.
May Allaah guide us all to the Straight Path.
Further, how we wish that the harm caused by such differing be limited to among
themselves and not extend to the other peoples being given da'wah, for then it would
not be that bad, but it is so sad when they allow it to reach the non- believers
in many areas around the world, and their differing obstructs the entry of people
in large numbers into the Deen of Allaah! The book Zalaam min al-Gharb by Muhammad
al- Ghazaali (p. 200) records the following incident,
"It so happened during a conference held at the University of Princeton in America
that one of the speakers raised a question, one which is a favourite of the Orientalists
and the attackers of Islaam: 'Which teachings do the Muslims advance to the world
in order to specify the Islaam towards which they are inviting ? Is it Islamic teachings
as understood by the Sunnis? Or is it as understood by the Imaami or Zaidi Shee'ahs?
Moreover, all of these are divided further amongst themselves, and further, some
of them believe in limited progression in thought, while others believe obstinately
in fixed ideas.'
The result was that the inviters to Islaam left those being invited in confusion,
for they were themselves utterly confused."14
In the Preface to Hadiyyah as-Sultaan ilaa Muslimee Bilaad Jaabaan by 'Allaamah
Sultaan al-Ma'soomi (rahimahullaah), the author says,
A query was posed to me by the Muslims from Japan, from the cities of Tokyo and
Osaka in the far east, "What is the actual Deen of Islaam? What is a Madhhab? Is
it necessary for one ennobled by the Deen of Islaam to adhere to one of the four
Madhhabs? That is, should he be Maaliki, Hanafi, Shaafi'i or Hanbali, or is it not
necessary?"
This was because a major differing, a filthy dispute, had occured here, when a number
of groups of Japanese intellectuals wanted to enter into the Deen of Islaam, and
be ennobled by the nobility of Eeman. When they proposed this to some Muslims present
in Tokyo, some people from India said, "It is best that they choose the Madhhab
of Abu Haneefah, for he is the Lamp of the Ummah"; some people from Indonesia (Java)
said, "No, they should be Shaafi'i!" So when the Japanese heard these statements,
they were extremely perplexed and were thrown off their original purpose. Hence
the issue of the Madhhabs became a barrier in the path of their accepting Islaam!!
Others have the idea that what we invite to, of following the Sunnah and not accepting
the views of the Imaams contrary to it, means to completely abandon following their
views and benefiting from their opinions and ijtihaad.
Answer: This idea is as far as can be from the truth - it is false and obviously
flawed, as is clearly evident from our previous discussion, all of which suggests
otherwise. All that we are calling to is to stop treating the Madhhab as a Deen,
placing it in the position of the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, such that it is referred
to in the case of dispute or when extracting a new judgment for unexpected cirumstances,
as the so-called jurists of this age do when setting new rules for personal matters,
marriage, divorce, etc, instead of referring to the Qur'aan and the Sunnah to distinguish
the right from the wrong, the truth from falsehood - all of this on the basis of
their "Differing is a mercy" and their idea of pursuing every concession, ease and
convenience! How fine was the saying of Sulaiman at-Taymi (rahimahullaah):
Were you to accept the concessions of every scholar, In you would gather every evil.
Related by Ibn 'Abdul Barr in Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilm (2/91- 91), who said after it,
"There is ijmaa' (consensus of opinion) on this: I know of no contrary view."
All this pursuing of concessions for the sake of it is what we reject, and it agrees
with ijmaa', as you see.
As for referring to the Imaams' views, benefiting from them, and being helped by
them in understanding the truth where they have differed and there is no text in
the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, or when there is need for clarification, we do not reject
it. In fact, we enjoin it and stress upon it, for there is much benefit expected
in this for whoever treads the path of being guided by the Qur'aan and the Sunnah.
'Allaamah Ibn 'Abdul Barr (rahimahullaah) says (2/182),
"Hence, my brother, you must preserve the fundamentals and pay attention to them.
You should know that he who takes care over preserving the sunnahs and the commandments
stated in the Qur'aan, considers the views of the jurists to assist him in his ijtihaad,
open up different angles of approach and explain sunnahs which carry different possible
meanings, does not blindly follow the opinion of anyone of them the way the Sunnah
should be followed without analysis, nor ignores what the scholars themselves achieved
in preserving and reflecting on the sunnahs, but follows them in discussion, understanding
and analysis, is grateful to them for their efforts through which they have benefited
him and alerted him about various points, praises them for their correct conclusions,
as in the majority of cases, but does not clear them of errors just as they did
not clear themselves: such is the pursuer of knowledge who is adhering to the way
of the pious predecessors; such is the really fortunate and truly guided; such is
the follower of the Sunnah of his Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), and the
guidance of the Companions (radi Allaahu 'anhum).
But he who refrains from analysis, forsakes the method we have mentioned, disputes
the sunnahs with his opinion and desires to accommadate them only where his own
view allows: such a one is straying and leading others astray. Further, he who is
ignorant of all we have mentioned, and plunges carelessly into giving verdicts without
knowledge: such a one is even more blind, and on a path more astray."
There exists another common misconception among muqallideen which bars them from
practising the Sunnah which it is apparent to them that their Madhhab is different
to it in that issue: they think that practising that sunnah entails faulting the
founder of the Madhhab. To them, finding fault means insulting the Imaam; if it
is not allowed to insult any individual Muslim, how can they insult one of their
Imaams ?
Answer: This reasoning is totally fallacious, and borne of not understanding the
Sunnah; otherwise, how can an intelligent Muslim argue in such a way?!
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) himself said, When the one
making a judgment strives his outmost and arrives at the correct result, he has
two rewards; but if he judges, striving his utmost and passes the wrong judgment,
he has one reward.15 This hadeeth refutes
the above argument and explains lucidly and without any obscurity that if someone
says, "So-and-so was wrong", its meaning under the Sharee'ah is "So-and-so has one
reward." So if he is rewarded in the eyes of the one finding fault, how can you
accuse the latter of insulting him?! There is doubt that this type of accusation
is baseless and anyone who makes it must retract it: otherwise it is he who is insulting
Muslims, not just ordinary individuals among them, but their great Imaams among
the Companions, Successors the subsequent Mujtahid Imaams and others. This is because
we know for sure that these illustrious personalities used to fault and refute each
other16; is it reasonable to say, "They used to insult
each other"? No! In fact, it is authentically-reported that the Messenger of Allaah
(sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) himself faulted Abu Bakr (radi Allaahu 'anhu) in
his interpretation of a man's dream, saying to him, "You were right in some of it
and wrong in some of it"17- so did he (sallallaahu
'alaihi wa sallam) insult Abu Bakr by these words?!
One of the astonishing effects this misconception has on its holders is that it
prevents them from following the Sunnah when it is different to their Madhhab, since
to them practising it means insulting the Imaam, whereas following him, even when
contrary to the Sunnah, means respecting and loving him! Hence they insist on following
his opinion to escape from this supposed disrespect.
These people have forgotten - I am not saying: ... pretended to forget - that because
of this notion, they have landed in something far worse than that from which they
were fleeing. It should be said to them, "If to follow someone means that you are
respecting him, and to oppose him means that you are insulting him, then how do
you allow yourselves to oppose the example of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa
sallam) and not follow it, preferring to follow the Imaam of the Madhhab in a path
different to the Sunnah, when the Imaam is not infallible and insulting him is not
Kufr?! If you interpret opposing the Imaam as insulting him, then opposing the Messenger
of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is more obviously insulting him; in fact,
it is open Kufr, from which we seek refuge with Allaah!" If this is said to them,
they cannot answer to it, by Allaah, except one retort which we hear time and time
again from some of them: "We have left this sunnah trusting in the Imaam of the
Madhhab, and he was more learned about the Sunnah than us."
Our answer to this is from many angles, which have already been discussed at length
in this Introduction. This is why I shall briefly limit myself to one approach,
a decisive reply by the permission of Allaah. I say:
"The Imaam of your Madhhab is not the only one who was more learned about the Sunnah
than you: in fact, there are dozens, nay hundreds, of Imaams who too were more knowledgeable
about the Sunnah than you. Therefore, if an authentic sunnah happens to differ from
your Madhhab, and it was taken by one of these other Imaams, it is definitely essential
that you accept this sunnah in this circumstance. This is because your above- mentioned
argument is of no use here, for the one opposing you will reply, 'We have accepted
this Sunnah trusting in our Imaam, who accepted it' - in this instance, to follow
the latter Imaam is preferable to following the Imaam who has differed from the
Sunnah."
This is clear and not confusing to anyone, Allaah Willing.
Because of all of the above, I am able to say:
Since this book of ours has collected the authentic sunnahs reported from the Messenger
of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) about the description of his Prayer, there
is no excuse for anyone to not act on it, for there is nothing in it which the scholars
have unanimously rejected, as they would never do. In fact, in every instance several
of them have adopted the authentic sunnah; any one of them who did not do so is
excused and rewarded once, because the text was not conveyed to him at all, or it
was conveyed but in such a way that to him it did not constitute proof, or due to
other reasons which are well-known among the scholars. However, those after him
in front of whom the text is firmly established have no excuse for following his
opinion; rather, it is obligatory to follow the infallible text.
This message has been the purpose of this Introduction. Allaah, Mighty and Sublime,
says,
"O you who believe! Give your response to Allaah and His Messenger when he calls
you to that which will give you life, and know that Allaah comes in between a man
and his heart, and it is He to whom you shall all be gathered."
18
Allaah says the Truth; He shows the Way; and He is the Best to Protect and the Best
to Help. May Allaah send prayers and peace on Muhammad, and on his family and his
Companions. Praise be to Allaah, Lord of the Worlds.
Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaani
Damascus 28/10/1389 AH
Footnotes
[1]al-Anfaal, 8:46
[2]ar-Room, 30:31-2
[3]Houd, 11:118-9
[4]cf. Al-Ihkaam fi Usool al-Ahkaam by Ibn Hazm, Hujjatullaah
al-Baalighah by al-Dehlawi, & the latter's essay dealing specifically with this
issue, 'Iqd al-Jeed fi Ahkaam al- Ijtihaad wat-Taqleed.
[5]See Faid al-Qadeer by al-Manaawi (1/209) or Silsilah al- Ahaadeeth
ad-Da'eefah (1/76, 77)
[6]Ibn 'Abdul Barr in Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilm (2/81-2)
[7]ibid. (2/82, 88-9)
[8]ibid. (2/83-4)
[9]ibid (2/89)
[10]cf. Al-Intiqaa' by Ibn 'Abdul Barr (41), Kashf al-Mughatta
fi Fadl al-Muwatta' (pp. 6-7) by Ibn 'Asaakir, & Tadhkirah al-Huffaaz by Dhahabi
(1/195).
[11]Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilm (2/88)
[12]see Chapter Eight of the book, Maa Laa Yajooz min al-Khilaaf
(pp. 65-72), where you will find numerous examples of what we have indicated, some
of them involving scholars of Al-Azhar.
[13]Al-Bahr ar-Raa'iq.
[14]I now say: Muhammad al-Ghazaali's recent writings such as
his newly-released book entitled As-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah bayna Ahl al-Hadeeth wa
Ahl al-Fiqh (The Prophetic Sunnah between the People of Hadeeth and the People of
Fiqh) have confirmed that he himself is one of those inviters to Islaam who are
"themselves utterly confused"! His writings have for long betrayed his confusion,
his distortion of the Sunnah, and his using his intellect to authenticate or falsify
ahaadeeth, not by turning to the principles and science of Hadeeth, nor to the experts
of that field; instead, whatever appeals to him, he authenticates, even if it is
weak, and declares unreliable whatever is not to his liking, even if it is agreed
to be authentic!
His above approach is shown most obviously in his discussion of the ahaadeeth in
his previous book Fiqh as- Seerah , where he explains his methodology of accepting
unreliable ahaadeeth and discarding authentic ones on the basis of the text of the
hadeeth alone, from which the reader can see that the objective criticism of Hadeeth
has no value in his eyes if it contradicts a "reasoned analysis", which varies enormously
from person to person, for what is truth to one is falsehood to another! Thus the
whole of Islaam becomes subject to personal whims, having no principles nor reference
points except personal opinion; this is poles apart from the position of the early
leading 'ulamaa of Islaam, "that the Isnaad is part of the religion; were it not
for the Isnaad, people would have said whatever they wished."
His latest above-mentioned book has exposed to the people his Mu'tazilite methodology,
his blatant disregard for the Imaams of Hadeeth and their efforts over the ages
in serving the Sunnah, and distinguishing the genuine traditions from the unreliable
ones, and his lack of appreciation of the efforts of the Imaams of Fiqh in their
laying down principles and developing issues on that basis, for he takes from these
and leaves from them whatever he wishes, with no consistency towards any set of
principles or fundamentals!
[15]Bukhaari & Muslim.
[16]See the previous words of Imaam Muzani and Haafiz Ibn Rajab
al-Hanbali.
[17]Bukhaari & Muslim; see
Appendix Two for the full hadeeth.
[18]al-Anfaal, 8:24
ICTruth.info