当你比较传统的伊斯兰教法学派时，会发现有些学派在某些方面更难遵循，而在另一些方面则更容易遵循。例如，A学派对小净（wudu）的要求和条件可能比B学派更难满足，但B学派在旅行等方面则更为宽松、更容易遵循。

When you compare the traditional schools of fiqh, you will find some of them to be more difficult to follow in some areas and easier to follow in other areas. For example, the requirements and conditions of wudu in School A might be more difficult to satisfy than School B but School B is easier or more lenient in terms of travel, etc.

但是，当你审视现代改革者在伊斯兰教法（fiqh）问题上的观点时，会发现它们都朝着同一个方向发展。他们的立场非常可以预见，唯一明显的共同点是：这些立场都迎合了现代西方资产阶级的情感、偏见与追求。任何理性的人都能看出，这绝非巧合。这是一个显著的危险信号，表明这些改革者并没有一贯的usul，即原则，作为其推导观点的依据。相反，他们先确定一个与占主导地位的社会习俗最为一致的观点，即他们有时所称的“理性”，然后再事后拼凑一个理由，从对《古兰经》和圣训的高度选择性的解读中寻找依据，或许还会从合法的乌莱玛那里找到一些罕见的少数派观点来加以佐证。

But when you look at the opinions of modern reformers on matters of fiqh, they all trend in one direction. They all take very predictable positions with the only apparent common thread tying them together is that they accord with and accommodate the sensibilities, biases, and aspirations of modern Western bourgeois people. Any rational person can see that this is not a coincidence. This is the glaring red flag that signals to us that these reformers have no consistent usul, i.e., principles, by which they are deriving their opinions. Rather, they settle on their opinion, whatever is most concordant with the dominant social conventions, i.e., what they sometimes call “reason,” and then, after the fact, try to cobble together a justification from a highly selective reading of the Quran and hadith, and perhaps other rare minority opinions they may find from legit ulama.

尽管如此,这些改革者仍坚持要求我们其他人认真对待他们。

Despite all this, these reformers insist on being taken seriously by the rest of us.