and it is enough for me to follow them in their knowledge, principles, and guidance, and to call to what they called to. But where do you stand in relation to them, when you have opposed them in all of this? Here is but one example out of dozens, making plain to anyone with eyes that you follow a distinctive method in hadith criticism, in which you imitate the people of innovation and vain desires, and then build upon it an incoherent, feeble jurisprudence.

As for your accusing our brothers of blind imitation, that is “a trait we recognize from Akhzam,” owing to your ignorance of the difference between following with insight and blind imitation (1). The example is before you now as well: if I demonstrate to people this sunnah that you reject by means of authentic hadiths which you declare weak, and I concur with the hadith imams in authenticating them, are they then imitating me, or following the sunnah?

I wonder: if these people are imitators in your view, then what do you call those who are deceived by your empty rhetoric, beguiled by your profuse talk, and follow after your mirage? There must surely be people of this kind who are deceived, for “every discarded thing in the town has someone to pick it up”! Allah has spoken the truth: “But most people do not know.” “Surely in that is a reminder for whoever has a heart, or gives ear while being attentive.”

In conclusion, I say:

This man’s declaring dozens of authentic hadiths weak—hadiths whose authenticity is undisputed among the hadith scholars—is among the strongest proofs that he has devised principles for himself other than theirs. Consequently, his rulings differ from their rulings. Thus, the disagreement between us and him is one of fundamental roots, not a subsidiary matter, as some kind-hearted people may imagine. Therefore, no mutual understanding with him is possible—even if we were to assume that he is sincere—unless he agrees with us on the principles and foundations (2). His case in this respect is like that of