to do? (1) Or does it fall under neither category, in which case nothing whatsoever is binding upon him? (2)

Likewise, one examines a case in which blood, carrion, or pork has fallen into (3) water or another liquid without altering its color or taste. Rather, the impurities became dispersed and transformed within it; or they were removed from it, while whatever particles of them had mingled with it underwent transformation within it. The question is then whether it comes under the designation of water mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah, or under the designation of carrion, blood, and pork.

As for refining the operative basis and deriving it, both are disputed. This Imāmī did not present even a single argument for the invalidity of independent legal reasoning, reasoned opinion, and analogical reasoning to which a response might be given. Rather, he merely stated that his sect does not accept them. This demonstrates their ignorance of inference and deduction, their lack of knowledge of the wisdom and meanings contained in the Sharia, and their inability to bring like cases together and distinguish between unlike cases. They are likewise ignorant of the meanings of the Quran and the hadiths of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

Thus, they are ignorant of the foundational sources of the revealed law—the Book, the Sunnah, and consensus—both their explicit texts and what may be inferred from them. Their sole reliance is upon reports transmitted from those whom they follow. Such is the state of ignorant imitators who follow individual scholars who themselves reason from evidence. Yet others who follow scholars—such as Mālik, al-Shāfiī, Ahmad, Abū Hanīfah, and others—possess knowledge of these scholars’ positions, of the methods by which they distinguish sound positions from weak ones, and of their evidence and the grounds from which they derived their views.

As for the Rāfidah, they do not distinguish between what is authentically transmitted from their imams and what is not,