Again al-Bootee tried to avoid Shaykh Naasirs point and claimed that
al-Ma`soomee [began by] addressing all the Muslims with those words.
Shaykh Naasir then said: however he has set two conditions "when you
delve and excel in knowledge and your strength of resolve increases through
taqwaa" so is he addressing those who have no knowledge or those who have
Al-Bootee did not reply, instead he quoted again from Ma`soomee claiming that
his words required every Muslim, including the ignorant, to perform ijtihaad. He
quoted from page 5 where al-Ma`soomee quotes some ahaadeeth proving the ease of
Islaam and the ease of understanding it such as the hadeeth of Jibreel and the
hadeeth of ibn Umar concerning the five pillars.
Shaykh Naasir replied by saying: It is necessary to understand these hadeeth
in their correct context for the author did not intend by quoting these two
hadeeth what al-Bootee understood from them. This is because al-Ma`soomee
mentions in his introduction the reason why he wrote this book. This being that
some Japanese Muslims had written a letter to him mentioning that some Japanese
desired to enter Islaam in the year 1357H. This was presented to the Jam`iyyah
of Muslims in Tokyo and some of these Muslims asked these Japanese to become
Hanafee and others asked them to become Shaafi`ee. This confused the Japanese
and became the cause for them not to enter into Islaam! So the people who wrote
al-Ma`soomee the letter asked him to clarify his views on this issue. So
al-Ma`soomee wrote them this book explaining that entering into Islaam was easy,
by articulating the Shahaadah and establishing the remaining four pillars and
that it was not necessary to follow a specific madh-hab.
Al-Bootee objected to this by quoting al-Ma`soomee on page 6 as saying,
"as for the madh-habs then they consist of the opinions and the
understanding of the People of Knowledge in some issues and neither Allaah or
His Messenger have obligated anyone to follow them."
Shaykh Naasir explained that al-Ma`soomee had restricted the meaning of his
words when he said, "in some issues" and it is known that there are
some opinions that are purely ijtihaadi [not having any text to support them]
and it is these that al-Ma`soomee intended.
At this point al-Bootee accused al-Ma`soomee of having a bad convention in
Shaykh Naasir replied by saying that al-Ma`soomee was to be excused for this
because he was a non-Arab, a Turk, and that the important point was to take note
of the meaning of his words and not the sentence construction. Indeed that which
was to be understood from the book of al-Ma`soomee was the opposite to what
The Discussion now digressed to Ijtihaad
At this point the father of al-Bootee interjected saying that the analogy
that al-Ma`soomee made to water and tayammum was correct. However this was for
the Mujtahid scholar who fulfilled the well-known and many conditions. He stated
that the Hanafee, Shaafi`ee and Maalikee madh-habs are agreed that the door to
ijtihaad closed after the fifth century to the extent that they considered
an-Nawawee and ar-Raafi`ee to scholars who merely decided what the strongest
opinion [of already existing opinions] was.
Dr. Bootee, realising that this was a point of difference between himself and
his father tried to change the subject. However Shaykh Naasir mentioned that Dr.
Bootee differed with him on this issue and that he endorsed the fact that the
door to ijtihaad remained open. The father thought this was to be very strange.
Dr. Bootee again interjected trying to return the discussion back to the book of
al-Ma`soomee claiming that the analogy of water and tayammum meant that
al-Ma`soomee required everyone to perform ijtihaad because it required everyone
to leave the words of the scholars except in those issues for which there was no
Shaykh Naasir refuted him by saying that this was an erroneous understanding
and he mentioned other texts from the book endorsing this in which al-Ma`soomee
explained the obligation of taqleed upon the ignorant.
Then al-Bootee found no further room for arguing except through claiming that
the words of al-Ma`soomee were self-contradictory.
The Discussion now Digressed to Whether one could call the religion of
Muhammad (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) a madh-hab.
Both al-Bootee and his father rejected this. Shaykh Naasir stated that from a
linguistic point of view there was nothing preventing this however he agreed to
The Discussion then Digressed to whether an incorrect ijtihaad could be
called (or taken as) deen
Shaykh Naasir was of the opinion that to do so was erroneous, however
al-Bootee and his father were of the opinion that to do so was correct. After
some discussion they conceded to Shaykh Naasirs stance.