I say, and with God's guidance: This ruling is completely incorrect; rather, it is the work of those who wanted to drive people away from the doctrine of the Ahl al-Sunnah by adhering to one of its jurisprudential schools, distorting the image of these schools, and vilifying their adherents. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Whoever mentions this issue should clarify the reason behind it and what motivates this prohibition. Is it merely whim and mood as these people think of the schools and their adherents, or is there a jurisprudential matter that this prohibition is based upon? No matter how much one searches, they will find no way to support their misguided views; rather, they will find all expressions and jurisprudential texts indicating and clearly stating the permissibility of marriage among the followers of the schools. 2. Although this issue has been mentioned in some fatwa books, it does not stem from a jurisprudential disagreement among the schools but rather from the doctrinal differences among the scholars of the Muhammadan ummah. The jurisprudential disagreement has no relevance here; rather, it presents the jurisprudential ruling resulting from the doctrinal disagreement. Thus, it is the right of anyone discussing this issue to clarify that the disagreement is based on doctrinal differences, not on jurisprudential biases. 3. This ruling is not transmitted from the mujtahids but from those below them. It is known that only the ijtihad of the mujtahid and the ruling of the jurist are valid; others have no say in clarifying rulings and manifesting the symbols of Islam. Some of what appears in books regarding takfir (excommunication) should only be taken after scrutiny and consideration. It has been mentioned in "Al-Muhit": "There is much takfir in the words of the people of the schools, but it is not from the words of the jurists who are the mujtahids, but from others, and the words of non-jurists are not to be considered." This is also stated in many books. 4. The jurisprudential books are not all equal; rather, they vary in degrees, consideration, and reliability. Therefore, anyone referring to them must know their ranks and the conditions of their authors; because many of them mix the good and the bad, the fresh and the dry. A reader without knowledge or reflection is like a night-time gatherer who thinks a snake is firewood and takes it, only to be bitten. This issue has been mentioned by some fatwa authors, and it is known to be like deserts. Al-Laknawi said: "The jurist is one who reflects and contemplates, not one who merely follows the apparent without contemplation. Indeed, what comes to my mind is that fatwas are like deserts that gather the fresh and the dry; one should not take everything in them except the one who is alert." He also said: "Know that the mufti should strive to refer to the reliable books and not rely on every book, especially fatwas that are like deserts, unless he knows the condition of their author and his great status. If he finds an issue in a book that has no trace in the reliable books, he should review it; if he finds it there, then fine, otherwise he should not dare to issue a fatwa on it." 5. This issue has been mentioned by the prominent scholars of the school to demonstrate its invalidity and to refute it, not to support it, even if it is based on a doctrinal disagreement. They transmitted the words of Al-Rustaghfini: "Marriage between the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Mu'tazila is not permissible," then the words of Al-Fadl: "It is not permissible between one who says: I am a believer, if God wills; because he is a disbeliever," and they clarified that some of them based on this prohibited the marriage of the Shafi'is. Yet, there was disagreement about it; some said it is permissible, and some said he may marry their daughter but should not give his daughter in marriage to them. This opinion was justified in "Al-Bazzaziyya" by saying: "They are treated like the People of the Book." Then they denied that and strongly refuted it, including: The statement of Ibn Najim: "The claim of takfir against one who says: I am a believer, if God wills, is wrong, and their words should be interpreted as referring to one who says that while doubting his faith, and the Shafi'is do not hold this view; thus, marriage between the Hanafis and Shafi'is is permissible without doubt. As for the Mu'tazila, the correct view is that their marriage is permissible; because the truth is that the people of the qibla are not to be excommunicated, as we have previously transmitted from the imams in the chapter on imamate." Look how they did not excommunicate other sects like the Mu'tazila and permitted their marriages; how then do they prohibit the marriage of the Ahl al-Sunnah?! And the statement of Ibn al-Humam: "It is not hidden that one who says: I am a believer, if God wills, means the faith of the meeting, which they have explicitly stated, referring to what the servant will be held accountable for; because it is an announcement about himself regarding an action in the future or its continuity. This relates to His saying: {And do not say of anything, 'Indeed, I will do that tomorrow,' except that Allah wills} [Al-Kahf: 23-24]. According to this, his saying, 'If God wills,' is a condition, not as it is said that it is merely for blessing. However, it does not imply his disbelief; rather, it is contrary to our view of what is preferable; because training oneself to be decisive in such matters is better than introducing an element of hesitation about whether he will be a believer at the meeting or not. As for the Mu'tazila, the correct view is that their marriage is permissible; because the truth is that the people of the qibla are not to be excommunicated, even if it is obligatory in discussions, unlike one who contradicts the necessary cuttings of religion, such as the one who claims the eternity of the world or denies knowledge of particulars, as the scholars have stated..." Here is another benefit: that these discussions are theoretical and not practical, as indicated by the words of Ibn al-Humam that it is a matter of obligation in discussions. If you pay attention to what has been mentioned, you will know that this is a hollow claim that should not be given attention by a person of sound mind and broad benefit, nor should it be allowed to spread corruption and mischief. And God is the guide to the right path.