The most important: It is said to those who went to the position that things were permissible before the advent of Sharia. With what?

How did you know that? By necessity or by evidence? If they say by necessity, then that is impossible due to the lack of equality in that. And necessity is far from this kind; and if it is said by evidence, it is asked: Is it auditory or rational? If they say rational, then that is impossible, as reason has no role in prohibition and permissibility.

And if they say auditory, then the auditory is absent, and the rulings are established by Sharia. And the establishment of Sharia without the Messenger is impossible. It is strange that we find a response from Al-Mahdi to those who held that the implication of a command is obligation, while this is his opinion, as we have established earlier. It is a response that almost perfectly matches what he responded with to those who argued for permissibility. And at the end of it, it states that it is general to all the opinions previously presented, as he says, "And likewise, it is said to all of them, so the corruption of their doctrines and the invalidity of their statements become clear. Their disagreement is only due to the ambiguity of the language's indications upon them." And in contrast to this, this ambiguity and confusion represented in the response to the view that he himself preferred at first.

This response is claimed to cover all other opinions. The evidence for the proponents of obligation for their opinion is not a critique of the opinion itself. The evidence for this is that he immediately moved on to explain his reasoning based on five rules, which we mentioned earlier. The confusion and deficiency in presenting and critiquing the opinions of opponents are clearly evident. Perhaps this is due to poor dictation and transcription by Al-Mahdi's students, who transcribed his teachings.

As for the opinion that Al-Mahdi preferred regarding the implication of obligation, the persistent insistence and decisive certainty in multiple parts of his works that the implication of a command is obligation, even if it aligns with the opinion of the majority, it is closest to what Ibn Hazm went for in his absolute certainty that a command implies obligation until there is evidence to divert it to recommendation or The word "prohibition" was mentioned in the text. This is an error because Al-Mahdi is in the process of responding to those who said that things were permissible before the advent of Sharia.

The most sought-after: Ibn Tumart Same source and page.