Why should the understanding of the Four Imams and Ibn Taymiyyah regarding Islam be adopted to the exclusion of others? And why does no one appear in this era who is more knowledgeable than them? And is the understanding of those who preceded us the sole correct understanding, such that any new understanding that differs from it is considered a departure from the methodology of the Salaf?

Allah has blessed the Ummah by preserving its Book and the Sunnah of its Prophet, which are the two primary sources of legislation. From these two, Ijma' (consensus) and Qiyas (analogy) are derived. Any scholar can deduce rulings from them, provided they meet the conditions of Ijtihad, such as knowledge of the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, the abrogating and abrogated verses, Ijma', the Arabic language, and the fundamentals of Fiqh. The door of Ijtihad is open to those who possess its tools, and the scholars of the Ummah continue to exert effort and deduce rulings for emergent issues, while acknowledging the weakness of Ijtihad in later eras. The Mujtahid (one who performs Ijtihad) cannot do without the Fiqh of the Salaf (pious predecessors) to benefit from their proofs and their method of examining them. The knowledge of the Salaf is distinguished by their proximity to the era of the Message, their mastery of the language, and their devotion to knowledge. The criterion for the validity of opinions is the Shari'ah evidence. As for a new understanding of texts, it is examined and accepted if it conforms to sound rules of deduction. The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta' has issued a fatwa stating that the door of Ijtihad is open to people of knowledge and insight, and it warned against Ijtihad by those who do not possess its tools.