Original Text
As reported from Tet and the morals, they had turned entirely towards Allahu Te’âlâ with all their capabilities.
Indeed, the caliphate passed into the hands of those who were not qualified to give legal rulings, and they were forced to bring the scholars together with them in every situation, to seek their help and to take rulings from them. — A portion of the Tâbi’i (those who did not see the Prophet but followed the way of the predecessors and adhered to the manner of the Companions) remained. When people sought their judgment and legal rulings, they would avoid and be hesitant. Because of this, the caliphs were compelled to force them to take on duties.
The people of that time, seeing that the scholars did not give rulings to the sultans, turned towards learning knowledge in order to obtain the positions given by the sultans. They devoted themselves to the science of legal rulings and presented themselves to the rulers. They sought out ways to meet them and requested duties and gifts from them. Some found what they desired, while others did not. Those whose desires were not fulfilled could not escape the consequences of their failure. Thus, while the scholars were being sought, they began to seek themselves. Because of their fear of the sultans and their turning towards them, they became small despite their greatness. However, except for those scholars who were favored by the help of Allahu Teâlâ in every era, this was the case.
410 İHYÂU ‘ULUMI’D – DIN — Volume 1 — The Quarter of Worship
Because the need for rulings and legal decisions was great, people in that era turned most towards the sciences of rulings and legal decisions.
Later, some rulers and leaders began to incline towards listening to certain statements regarding Islamic principles. Those who saw the sultans’ inclination towards this turned to the science of theology. Many works were written on this subject, and methods of debate were established. In their writings, they opened ways for opposition. In doing so, they claimed and assumed that they were protecting the religion and defending the Sunnah, and that they wanted to bring the innovators to disgrace. Indeed, those who had previously dealt with rulings had apparently believed that their purpose was to show mercy to people and to give them advice, and that they were protecting the religion and making the Muslim religious affairs acceptable to them.
Later, a class of elders emerged; these people, because they caused such open hostility and bloody conflicts that would destroy the ma’mûr (the governed), did not consider it appropriate for the door of debate in theology to be opened. Instead, they turned to debate in jurisprudence, and especially inclined towards disputing which of the schools of thought, the school of Imam al-A’zam or the school of Imam al-Shafi’i, was superior. Those who saw this abandoned theology and other sciences, and focused on the similarities between Imam al-Shafi’i and Imam Abu Hanifa, while neglecting the independent reasoning of Imam Malik, Ibn al-Subra, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and others. In doing so, they believed that the purpose of the scholars was to explain the subtleties of the Sharia and to establish the reasons behind the schools of thought and to expand the principles of rulings. In this matter, they discovered many strange issues, wrote books, and found various ways of debate, and this situation continues to this day. We cannot know what will happen in future centuries and what Allahu Teâlâ’s predestination entails.
Indeed, the only thing that has led the scholars to these sciences is the inclination of the great ones towards these sciences. If the sultans and elders had inclined towards the schools of other Imams or other schools of thought, they would have also inclined towards them, and our purpose would be to engage in the science of religion in order to approach Allahu Teâlâ, and they would not have fallen behind in defending this.
EXPLANATION OF HOW MIXING THESE DEBATES WITH THE COUNSEL OF THE COMPANIONS AND THE MUTUAL CONVERSATIONS OF THE PREDECESSORS IS MISLEADING
It is known that these people, by drawing people to this path, say: «Our purpose in debate is to reveal the truth. Because the truth is what is sought. In knowledge, it is beneficial and has a great effect to find the meaning by comparing thoughts and ideas. Indeed, this was the practice of the noble Companions (R.A.).»
1st Book — 4th Chapter — The Science of Contradiction and the Evils of Debate — 111
———,
— ee
they say, Indeed, in the matter of inheritance, the case of the grandfather and the brother (1062), the case of the wine and the intoxicant (106b), the case of compensation for an Imam who erred in independent reasoning, the case of a woman who feared Omar (R.A.) and dropped her child, and the ruling that Omar should provide her with a diet, and other cases of inheritance and similar cases, and the cases of Safi’i, Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Muhammad ibn — Hasat, Abu Yusuf, and other scholars (May Allah have mercy on them), are examples of this.
The explanation I will give to you will help you easily understand these comparisons. Seeking the truth is part of the obligations of religion. However, there are eight conditions and signs for this.
1 — Since these investigations are part of the collective obligation (farz-i kifaya), it is not permissible to neglect them without completing the individual obligations. When someone has individual obligations pending, and says, «I am engaging in the collective obligation to seek the truth,» they are lying. This situation is similar to a weaver who says, «My purpose in weaving and sewing is to prevent people from praying naked,» which sometimes happens and is possible. Indeed, it is similar to the scholars’ belief that it is possible for the rare cases mentioned in the science of contradiction to occur. Those who engage in contradiction neglect many things that are their individual obligations. If a person has an immediate debt to return but instead starts praying, the greatest act of worship, without paying it, they would be disobedient to Allahu Teâlâ. For a person to be considered a muti‘ (a person who performs acts of worship), it is not enough for the act they perform to be of the nature of worship, they must also adhere to the time, order, and conditions. (Adherence to these is a condition for an act to be considered worship.)
2 — This debate is more important than a collective obligation,