Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alameen, wassalatu wassalamu ala rasoolillahi sallallahu alayhi wasallam amma ba'd.
Ustad Abdur Rahman Hassan, salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. Thank you once again for joining me on the HotSeat Podcast.
Barakallahu feekum, wa feeka barakallah. So last week we spoke about the different madhahib fiqhiyah and the different schools of thought when it comes to Islamic jurisprudence and interpreting the Qur'an and the Sunnah. I actually want to do a very similar thing this week but instead of looking at fiqh, I want to look at the science of aqidah and I want to see how these different, for lack of a better word, schools in aqidah developed, where they came from and what are the main tenets of their belief.
To be honest with you, last week we focused on four madhahib and this week I kind of want to focus on two schools of thought when it comes to aqidah. The asha'ara who follow the Asha'ari creed and then the Salafis, which is the position that you're going to be representing today, who follow the Athari creed or otherwise known as the Hanbali creed in aqidah. As usual, I'm going to give you the introduction and I have two requests for the introduction and then one condition, which is a new condition I'm bringing to the table today.
The first request is that in your introduction can you please define briefly what aqidah means and the second one is please can you go through who are the asha'ara. Those are the two things I'd like you to do in your introduction and the new condition I'm going to bring to the table today is I'm going to limit you to a 10 minute introduction. I'm going to set a timer and after 10 minutes we're going to stop the introduction no matter where you are.
I'm going to go into the discussion. The 10 minutes is starting from now. Alhamdulillah Rabbil Alameen, Lahu Alhamdul Hassan, Wathana'ul Jameel, Wa Ashadu An La Ilaha Illa Allah, Wahadahu La Sharika Lah, Yaqulu Al Haqqa Wahuwa Yahdi Al Sabeel, Wa Ashadu Anna Muhammadan Abduhu Wa Rasuluh, Salallahu Alaihi Wa Alaa Alihi Wa Ashabihi, Wattabi'ina Lahum Bi Ihsanin Ila Yawmi Al Deen Amma Ba'd.
You're asking for something very big in a very short period of time. So al-aqidah is in simple terms, it's the six articles of faith. And there's also other mulhaqat, other things that scholars add on to al-aqidah, which they've taken from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the unanimous agreement of the salaf al-sadih, the pious predecessors, which is the issue of musammal iman.
What does iman actually mean? The issue of al-imamah, related to the Muslim leader. How do we deal with the Muslim leader? And other issues like that. Generally speaking, that is what al-aqidah is.
Again, it's a topic that requires a whole podcast by itself, but you've given me a very short period of time. So in a summarized, brief response, that's what I would say. As for the asha'ira, they refer themselves back to a man by the name of Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari, whose name is Abu al-Hassan Ali ibn Ismail, Abu Bishrin, Ishaq ibn Salim, Ibn Ismail, Ibn Abdullah, Ibn Musa, Ibn Bilal, who goes back to originally the noble companion Abu Musa al-Ashari al-Yamani al-Basri.
So that's where he refers, that's where he goes back to. This man was born, Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari, was born when the Islamic calendar was 260. He was born in Basra.
And so he's called Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari al-Basri. They call him al-Basri because of where he was, where he was born. His father, Ismail, Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari's father, Ismail, he was from the people of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama'ah.
And he was a muhaddith, his father, a man who knew the knowledge of hadith. And when his father was passing away, he spoke to a great imam, Zakariya ibn al-Hasaji, and said, can you take care of my son and educate him and teach him. So Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari, he took some hadiths from Zakariya ibn al-Yahya al-Saji.
Zakariya ibn al-Yahya al-Saji is a Shafi'i scholar and he's been an imam of hadith. And he has many books from them, Ikhtilaf al-Ulama, and he has a book called Ilal al-Hadith. When he died 307, he passed away in Basra.
So he sat with him and he took a few number of hadiths. Lakin, it didn't take too long. There was benefits that he was taking.
It wasn't something very long. It was only the first 10 years of his life. And then after that, his mother married a man by the name of Abu Ali al-Jubba'i al-Mu'tazili.
Abu Ali al-Jubba'i al-Mu'tazili is a Mu'tazili and he was a figurehead of him. So Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari remained with him for the next 30 years of his life. He stayed with this man.
And this man changed the view of Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari. And Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari passed away when it was 320 Hijriya. 320 Hijriya.
And some scholars they say now it's 324. And some scholars they say now it's 330 Hijriya. And that seems to be the strongest, which is 330 Hijriya.
Ibn al-Asakir strengthened that opinion. Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari, he went through marahl, stages in his life. If you break it down, it's five.
And if you bring it together, it's three. So let me take it as five so I can expand on it and explain it in more details. The first marhala of his life is the marhalat al-nash'ah.
It's when he grew up. It's the one I mentioned when he was born until the age of 10, where he was studying with the great imam which I mentioned, Abu Yahya Zakariya ibn Yahya ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Saji al-Basri. He took knowledge from him and he benefited from him.
That marhala didn't take too long for him and it wasn't a long lasting marhala. It wasn't a long lasting stage, which then moves me on to the second marhala, which is when Abu Ali al-Jubba'i married his mother and he took from him the i'tizan. He became a mu'tazili and he remained in that marhala for the next 30 years.
So 40 years, when he was the age of 40, Abu al-Hassan al-Ash'ari, he could not stay in this for too long. And he defended the mu'tazila to a level where he even mentioned it. He said, I authored a book, he mentions it in Kitab al-Ummah.
He said, I wrote a book in the mu'tazili ideology, defending it. No book was written for the mu'tazila like it. And so he became a master in it.
Which then brings us to the third stage of his life, where he came back from the mu'tazila ideology. And there's factors that played from him to leave the mu'tazili ideology. Some of which are number one, al-ru'a, a dream that he saw.
And this dream, ibn al-Asakir mentions it in his Kitab al-Tabiyyin wal-Kathib al-Muftari, Fi ma nusiba ila al-imami Abu al-Hassan al-Ash'ari. So a book that he wrote to defend Abu al-Hassan al-Ash'ari. In that book, ibn al-Asakir, he mentions that he had a dream, that the Prophet, he spoke to the Prophet ﷺ, and the Messenger ﷺ told him to go towards his sunnah.
The Prophet ﷺ said to him, عليك بسنة. Upon you is my sunnah. So, and that dream is mentioned in many different ways.
There's no chain for it. But because it's mentioned in ample books, like Tabaqat al-Subki, Tabaqat al-Qadi'i, Tabaqat al-Tarteeb al-Madarik. And also, ibn al-Asakir mentions it.
It seems to be something that has bases. The second reason why he left the mu'tazili belief was that he had a debate with his uncle, or his stepfather, debated on issues related to, is the name a'aqil, is that a name from the names of Allah? Another mas'ala known as as-salah wal-aslah. And issues like this they debated.
And Abu al-Hassan al-Ash'ari felt that Abu Ali al-Jubba'i was not grounded enough in these issues and he had no good answers. So he left him and he abandoned him. And then he turned away from that.
Another third factor they say that he left mu'tazila was because Abu al-Hassan al-Ash'ari, according to the strongest opinion, he is a shafi'i in madhhab. So al-Imam al-Shafi'i, as it's known, his position regarding ilm al-kalam is very well known. Shafi'i said, my ruling, hukmi ala ahli al-kalam, is ayu dharaba bil jareed wal ni'an.
Shafi'i said, my ruling on the people of ilm al-kalam is that they get lashed with branches, tree branches is taken and they're lashed, and shoes. And they're paraded in the market. And then they're told, hada jaza'u man a'arad a'ani al-kitabi wal-sunnah wa aqbala ala ilm al-kalam.
That's the ruling of the person who turns away from the Qur'an and the sunnah and turns towards ilm al-kalam. Shafi'i had a very strong position regarding ilm al-kalam. He even debated Bishr al-Marisi al-Aneed.
He debated also Hafs al-Fard. So Shafi'i didn't like ilm al-kalam. He used to refer to science as, anyone who learns it will turn into, it's a path to heresy.
So Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari is saying, I'm following Shafi'i in furu' al-fiqhiyya. I'm a Shafi'i in fiqh. But I am mu'tazili in mu'taqad.
And Shafi'i was against the mu'tazila. He couldn't reconcile between the two. So he left it.
And that's one of the reasons that I mentioned. Those reasons are also one of the reasons that contributed for him to leave the mu'tazila. Now I come to the fourth stage, which is the marhalat al-ash'ariya, where he became an ash'ari.
This marhala is when he took on the ideology of Abi Muhammad ibn al-Kullab. He took the belief of ibn al-Kullab. And he started to refute the mu'tazila.
And when he refuted the mu'tazila, he wrote a book called al-Luma fi al-raddi ala ahli al-zayghi wal-bida. And he wrote many many other books refuting the mu'tazila. And he would be the best person for the job because he was one of them for 40 years.
So he would know their ins and outs. So he went out to refute them. The last and final stage is the stage where he repented from that and he came to the mu'taqad and the belief of ahl al-sunnah wal-jama'ah.
But the strongest opinion is that when he did leave the tariqa of ibn al-Kullab, which is the path today, the ash'ariya, when they say we are ash'aris, they're referring to that fourth stage I was speaking about, which is marhala al-ash'ariya, when he was in ibn al-Kullab's path. They're referring to that stage, the ash'ariya today. This last stage to the ash'ariya, it doesn't exist.
They don't like it. They don't believe in it when it really is a reality. Ibn Kathir mentions it and it's a reality documented.
These works have been quoted by Ribana, it's been quoted by Ibn al-Asakir and others. This stage, even though he repented from that path and he became general, became from ahl al-sunnah, still ibn al-Kullab's ideology was still present with him. Now I want to speak about, it's a very big topic.
You've given me a very short period of time. What I want to say inshallah ta'ala is that, Abu al-Hassan al-Ash'ariya, we're out of time. We're going to go into it, I'm sure, but I can't give you any more time because I laid that condition at the start.
Okay, so what I got from that is that you're talking about a man, the one who was the founder, for lack of a better word, of the ash'ara, the madhhab of the ash'aris. And he originally was taken from a shaykh and a scholar from ahl al-sunnah. And then he went through different stages and it was like the second stage where he took the ma'tazili belief and then he tried to actually oppose the ma'tazila and that's where the stage came from this ash'ari belief that you're referring to today.
What is a summary of that kind of belief that you're going to be talking about today? Okay, this belief is detailed, it's really detailed and inshallah ta'ala I'm going to respond to it in great details. But can I just mention four figures and I think it's very important. Okay, I'll let you on it.
There's four men I believe that play a big role in the tatawwur and the tahawwul and the tahawwulat of the madhhab al-ash'ari. If these four figures are not looked at, you don't really understand ash'aria. As we know, Abul Hasan al-ash'ari, he diverted from the path of ahl al-sunnah wal-jama'ah when he was upon the path of ibn kullab and inshallah ta'ala I'm going to prove the way that that's the case.
But then every man who came added more deviation onto the issue. For example, Abu Bakr al-Baqilani is the first person I want to mention. Four people but I'll mention Abu Bakr al-Baqilani number one and this is all in order.
Abu Bakr al-Baqilani, he placed foundations, ta'sis al-aqli, he's the first person who put down logical arguments for the madhhab and he made what you would call a content page of a book. He gave the headings and he left it that way. Then Abu Ma'al al-Juwaini came.
Abu Ma'al al-Juwaini came so close to the mu'tazila. Initially, Abu al-Hasan al-ash'ari was refuting the mu'tazila in the kitab al-lumah, he was refuting it. Abu Ma'al al-Juwaini when he came, he got closer to the ash'aria, okay, so the mu'tazila and he basically weakened the arguments of the asha'ira against the mu'tazila and he wrote a kitab called al-irshad ila qawat'u al-adila, he wrote another kitab called al-shamin fi usul al-din.
If you compare Abu Ma'al al-Juwaini to Abu Bakr al-Baqilani, you see a big difference between the two of them. For example, if you read the kitab it's shocking because the taba'at has been, two taba'at have come out. One is not complete and the other one was complete.
What they did was subhanAllah is that Abu Bakr al-Baqilani affirms that Allah is above his throne, imagine that, and he refutes those people who do ta'weel of it, anyone who distorts the meaning. He proves that Allah is above his throne, that's Abu Bakr al-Baqilani. Now pay attention to that, Abu Bakr al-Baqilani proves this and he debunks the arguments of those who say otherwise.
Now if you look at the taba'at that have come out after that, you see that they took that chapter out, which brings me to a point later I'm going to prove what type of people the asha'ira are and their mindset and how deceptive they are, I'll prove it to you inshaAllah ta'ala. Abu Ma'al al-Juwaini denies the name of Allah being above his throne, he's now going against Abu Bakr al-Baqilani. So he wrote a kitab called Al-Irshad ila Qatil ad-Dilla, Shamil ila Usul al-Din.
Then came the third person, which is Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, who's a student of Abu Ma'al al-Juwaini. So I just mentioned Abu Ma'al al-Juwaini, what did he do? He became so close to the Mu'tazila, which the asha'ira were known to refute and speak against. Abu Ma'al al-Juwaini comes, he gets asha'ira close to the Mu'tazila.
Then Abu Hamid al-Ghazali comes and then what he does is he does a masjid between the tasawwuf and the asha'ira, which wasn't present before. He brings the Sufis to the asha'ira. So then after Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, you don't find an asha'ira except he's a Sufi.
And then he was the first person to place qanun al-ta'arudh bain al-aql wal-naql, that there is a contradiction between the text and the logic. So he wrote his kitab al-iqtisad fil-i'tiqad, he wrote a kitab called tahafut al-falasifah, and he wrote another kitab called qanun al-ta'wil. He just put down the argument that there could be a contradiction between the text and the logic and the reasoning.
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, the fourth individual comes. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi picked up from where Abu Hamid al-Ghazali left off, he picked up from there and he wrote a kitab called ta'sisu al-taqdis, which is also known as ta'sisu al-taqdis, where Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah took it upon himself to refute him. In four ayins what he said about the issue of qanun al-kulli, Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah wrote his kitab daru ta'arudh al-aql wal-naql where he refuted him.
He also has another kitab called ma'alimi usuri deen. These four men are the horsemen of the madhhab of asha'ira. You have to know these men.
If you don't know these men, you don't know the asha'ira. What you're saying is that they changed the madhhab over time. The asha'iri madhhab actually changed over time, it took different forms.
Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Okay, that's fine, understood. There's no issue with that.
I don't understand why that seems to be a problem in your mind. We discussed last week about the madhhab in fiqh also changing and that wasn't an issue for you at all. The raj and marjuh is going to change over time.
What's the issue with that? So, it's not an issue in the sense, I just want people to understand the historical development of the asha'iri madhhab. This is a madhhab that's not concrete. It's a problem here right now.
So all the madhhab in fiqh aren't concrete that changed over time? No, now I'm going to come to the issue. Abul Hasan al-Asha'iri, what he said is not what Fakhruddin al-Razi is saying in creedal issues. First of all, we shouldn't conflate between aqeedah and fiqh.
Let me give you something. Al-Imam al-Dhahabi, in the tarjam of Al-Imam al-Shafi'i, Muhammad ibn al-Diris al-Shafi'i, he speaks about the biography of Al-Imam al-Shafi'i. In there, he brings the senate of al-Zubayr ibn Abdul Wahid, where he said, akhbarani Ali ibn Muhammad in Egypt, haddatana Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abdul Hakam.
He said, kana al-Shafi'i, al-Imam al-Shafi'i, kana al-Shafi'i ba'da an-nadara Hafs al-Fard. When al-Shafi'i debated with this man, al-Hafs al-Fard, he disliked the ilm al-kalam. He disliked it.
Yakrahu ilm al-kalam. Sorry, it's the second or third time you mentioned that. What is ilm? Ilm al-kalam, it's Greek philosophy.
Okay, fine. They took Aristotle's arguments, they took Plato's arguments, and then they used that to understand aqeedah. So they were saying, the way usool al-fiqh is for fiqh, they were saying, ilm al-kalam is for aqeedah.
The great scholars of Islam denied that, refuted that, debunked that. Abu Madhafar al-Sama'an has a nice statement on that, which al-Imam al-Qawam al-Sunnah Abu Qasim al-Taymi brings in his Kitab al-Hujur fi Bayan al-Muhajjah. And Ismail al-Harawi has a Kitab called Dhamm al-Kalam.
Anyways, al-Shafi'i debated a man called Hafs al-Fard. When he refuted, when he debated him, al-Shafi'i said something very powerful. He said, wallahi, la'an yufti al-'alimu fayuqalu akhtaa al-'alimu khayrun lahu.
For a scholar, to give a fatwa and get it wrong, to get it wrong, is better for him than to do a what? To speak in ilm al-kalam, use ilm al-kalam, min an yatakallama fayuqalu zindiqun. To be said that he is a zindiq, a heretic individual. Pay attention here.
What does he mean by that? A person is speaking in fiqh, he gets it wrong, he's either going to get two rewards or one reward. He uses usool al-fiqh, he speaks about it, he's an alim, he's the right person for it. He's one or two rewards.
If he gets it right, he gets two rewards, and if he gets it wrong, he gets what? One reward. He said that's better for him, to get it wrong and just leave with one reward, because the scholars, they didn't want to get it wrong. They wanted to get it right.
That's what they were trying their hardest to get it right. Shafi'i is saying, for a person to give fatwa in an issue, and it's just between one or two rewards, is better for him, than to speak with ilm al-kalam, and what is between is what? Zindiq kafir and a Muslim. Then look what he said, shafi'i said, I don't hate, so I hate the most hated people to me, are the people of kalam? Now, Zahabi took something from this.
He said, this statement of shafi'i shows, that the methodology of al-imam al-shafi'i is, to do a mistake in a aqeedah, is not like doing a mistake in an issue of fiqh. So that's Zahabi's understanding. We have the statement of the Prophet, that the mujtahid, is it between one or two rewards? When you say Zahabi is mafhoom, we need to find someone who's either the same level of al-imam al-zahabi, someone who is of the caliber of al-imam al-zahabi, who we can say said otherwise.
So who is the imam al-zahabi? Who gives him the right to restrict a general statement? Who gives anyone the right, who's lower than al-imam al-zahabi, to disagree with him? Who's lower and weaker in understanding? The asal is that it's a general statement, that the alim is between one or two rewards. In aqeedah or fiqh? So why now you restrict that to only fiqh? The religion, by the way, this is something I need to clear for many people, they confuse. Furooh and usool, this is what we're dividing it into.
Don't use the word aqeedah and fiqh here necessarily, because in aqeedah there are issues which are furooh. And in aqeedah, the bulk of aqeedah are usool, the fundamental issues. Within aqeedah, there are issues which are furooh, which you might find great scholars disagree with.
Not scholars, but differences here or there on some small issues. We don't say they have difference in aqeedah, because once you say aqeedah, the overwhelming majority of aqeedah is usool. So when you say aqeedah, it will fall to that.
So what do you say? Usool. The same way you can't say they all agreed on fiqh, because the majority of fiqh is furooh. Do you see my point? So here what we say is that anyone who goes against Ahlus Sunnah in issues which are usool, like the issue of fiqh which is usool is like dhuhr is wajib.
Because someone say, I believe dhuhr is not wajib. Even though it's an issue of fiqh. Is that not an aqeedah issue as well? No, it's not.
The issue of dhuhr being wajib is what you study in books of fiqh. These are the five obligatory prayers. What is wajib, what is mustahab, what is mubah, what is makrooh, what is harab.
You study it in Usool al-fiqh and fiqh. But it's also a fundamental issue. It's a fundamental issue.
Somebody comes and says, I don't believe dhuhr is wajib, I don't believe asr is wajib, I don't believe ghudh is salah is wajib. That's disbelief. That's disbelief.
The same with issues of aqeedah. You can't go against, because these are issues which have been unanimously agreed upon. There's no difference of opinion on these issues.
There's an ijma' on these issues. That's what Dahabi is trying to say here, that Shafi'i is saying, hadha daalun ala anna madhaba abi abdillahi anna alkhata'a fil usool, a mistaken usool. And I like how Dahabi is precise in what he said.
He said, So there's ijtihad and there's khilaf. These two things have to be really understood. Khilaf means differences.
And we have differences with Christians, we have differences with Jews, we have differences with Buddhists, we have differences with the jahamiya, we have differences with the mu'tazila. These are differences. Ijtihad is what? It's a type of difference.
It's the accepted type of difference. It's the difference where you call it, ikhtilafun sa'ihun. Okay, this is where the discussion revolves around.
What determines whether it's ijtihad or ikhtilaf? Anything there is a Qur'an, sunnah, and there's ijma' on it. So the Qur'an and the sunnah and the understanding of these two have been restricted by consensus. And you can't go against that? No, you can't.
If the Qur'an says something, and the sunnah says something, and the ummah have unanimously agreed upon that this is one interpretation of this issue, no one is allowed to come and give it a, this is now, you have to stop. Allah says in the Qur'an, Anyone who goes, anyone who goes against the Prophet, after clear evidences come to him. Other than the path of the believers.
Allah says, Whatever path you've chosen is what Allah is going to forsake you on. And that's going to be a very bad path for you. Allah mentions, And Jahannam is going to be your final abode.
And then the books of aqeedah that you open, what you're reading is ijma', when they say, The salaf agreed upon these issues. Look at the kitab, at the beginning when he mentions it. He says this is the aqeedah of the ahl al-amsar, the belief of all of the Muslims.
Let's get to the crux of the issue now, between the asha'arah and the athari or the salafis or whoever you want to call it. So can I, can I, can I define who are ahl al-sunnah? So we have an understanding of it. So, okay, you can, but before I allow you to do that, you're saying ahl al-sunnah are not the asha'arah, because the asha'arah call themselves ahl al-sunnah as well.
Look, before we, that's the second, I want to be fair here. I don't want to jump saying that they are asha'arah or not. You just want to lay the definition.
Let's say, let's, let's look at asha'arah. Sorry, let's look at ahl al-sunnah, the definition for it. And then we look at what asha'arah believe.
And then we can compare the two. Are, do they fall against ahl al-sunnah? Ahl al-sunnah, who are they? Ahl al-sunnah are, as qawam al-sunnah mentioned. He said, who is qawam al-sunnah? He's an imam in a'imat al-salaf, early imam of the salaf.
With a name? Qawam al-sunnah, Abu al-Qasim al-Taymiyya al-Asbahani. He has a kitab called al-hujja fi bayan al-mahajja. By the way, the kitab again is a aqeedah book.
And he's talking about the consensus. He's not talking about a few group of hanabilah believe this, or a group of the shafi'iyya believe this, a group of the malikiyya believe this, or the hanafiyya. This is an imam who wrote his book based on the unanimous agreement of the imams of his statement.
Similar to it, you can find it in sharh al-sunnah li imam Abu al-Qasim, hibatullah al-alakai, usool a'tiqadah li sunnatu al-jama'a. You can also find a'qeedah al-salaf al-ashab al-hadith by Sabuni. You can find a'qeedah a'tiqadah immat al-hadith by Awakil al-Isma'ili.
You can also find it in the kitab al-wasatiyya by Sheikh al-Islam al-Taymiyya. And all of these books I'm saying are all based on unanimous agreement. It's not a difference of opinion and a fringe of people hold this view.
Because you understand that the asha'arah will also bring ulama and bring names and they talk about this person. It's like your scholar against his scholar. What's the difference? This definition I'm going to give, walillah alhamdulillah, they're not going to disagree with it.
Okay, fine. But inda nuzool al-maidan, as the scholars say, when we come down to the points and we look at each point, there we find they are on the east and the east was on the west. The distance between the east and the west is very far from each other.
qawam al-sunnah abu qasim al-taymiyyu he says in his kitab al-hujjah fee bayan al-mahajjah he says qawluhum when the scholars say fulanun alas sunnah wamin ahl al-sunnah when they say that it means muwafiqullil tanzeeli. He's in line with the revelation. wal-athar and ahadith fil fee'li wal-qawli in his speech and his actions li'anna al-sunnah la takoonu ma'a mukhaalafati allahi wa mukhaalafati al-rasulihi can't be from the people of the sunnah while still opposing Allah and his messenger.
Is that something anyone's going to agree with? No, no, no. Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, again, someone who's not true, they like, they admire. He mentions in his kitab jami'ulum wal-hikam.
He says wal-sunnah it means hiyat-tariqul-masluk sunnah means a path you take. Sunnah that's what it means. It's the path that you take.
So sunnah involves, sunnah means to hold on to that which the Prophet was hold on to. And his four rightly guided khulafa Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali min al-i'tiqadati, their beliefs wal-a'mali and their actions wal-aqwali and their statements wahadihi hiya sunnah kamilatan This is the complete reality of the sunnah. Idan, the sunnah is the Prophet and the four rightly guided khulafa in their speech, in their belief and in their actions.
Is that something a person can deny? No, that's perfectly fair. That's fair to say that this is it. Allah says in the Qur'an Follow that which has come to you from your Lord and do not follow anyone besides Allah The first person we need to follow is Allah.
If anyone or any individual is in opposition to Allah and his messenger, what do we do? We dismiss them and we go to Allah and his messenger. Sah? Al-Imam al-Qurtubi said something very powerful in the tafsir of this verse. He said Anyone who's pleased with a madhhab, a view, a methodology, a school of thought You are, that madhhab is your awliya.
You've chosen out them. If it's in line with Allah, it's fine. No problem.
What did he say? He said It means follow the Prophet. The illiterate one. The one that came to you with the book that you have.
The Qur'an. Allah also says We have the final point I want to mention is that we have the hadith of the Prophet. Or one specific hadith, which is called hadith al-iftiraq which many people know.
The hadith of the division. Abu Dawood narrated it. Ahmed narrated it.
Ibn Hajar authenticated it. Shaykh Nasir authenticated it. Where the Prophet mentioned The people of the scripture that came before you divided.
They broke into how many? Seventy two groups. This group. They were going to break into and divide into 73.
Seventy two are in the hellfire. It's not an issue of fiqh now. How can all of them go to hellfire if it's an issue of valid difference of opinion? The Prophet is saying But that's fine.
But that doesn't mean the one group. Within the one group. The safe sect.
As you call it. Doesn't mean that the Ash-Sha'ara and So you're right. I haven't yet gone to whether Ash-Sha'ara are But that group could be big.
With differences of opinion. With small difference of opinion in there. It could be.
Yeah but do you think But do you This is the point I want even the people watching To read and ask themselves this question. The Prophet is saying Seventy two are going to be in the hellfire. By the way the seventy two are not disbelievers.
They're Muslims. No problem. So it's not like When the Prophet ﷺ is saying وَإِنَّ هَٰذِهِ الْمِلَّةَ أَمَا وَإِنَّ أُمَّتِهِ My Ummah.
My Ummah. He means أُمَّةُ الْإِجَابَةُ The ones who accepted his message as a Prophet. Yeah no problem.
So they're Muslims. So seventy two of those groups are going to be in the hellfire. So they're not seventy two people Who differed with the Prophet in an issue of fiqh.
Okay. There's a fundamental issue. Something that is not tolerated.
Then the Messenger ﷺ mentioned The seventy three groups. Seventy two of them are going to be in the hellfire. And only one group is going to go to Jannah.
He then gave us who this group is. He didn't say Abdur Rahman it's you. All the Somalis That one group.
He didn't say that. He didn't say Oh the people from some subcontinent. You guys are that one group.
He didn't say Arabs you guys are that one group. That's going to be saved. He didn't say Europeans You are that one saved group.
He didn't. He gave a description. If you come with it wherever in the world you are.
You don't need to sign a paper. You don't need to Give Pledge of Allegiance to a particular individual organization. You don't have to.
Just one characteristic that's needed from you. Which is Whatever me and my companions are upon. And then Qawam al-Sunnah statement that I mentioned.
And Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali Is in line with those verses I mentioned. And the hadith that I just mentioned now. That Ahl al-Sunnah are who? They are the ones who take the Quran And the Sunnah And they also take what? The Sahabas.
The Prophet said that right? So we want to be from that one saved group. That's fair. Now let's look at the Asha'ira.
Is it fair for us to now look at the Asha'ira. What they believe when it comes to following the Quran and Sunnah. I don't want to quote other people.
I'm going to quote them. That's fine. I'm going to allow you to do that.
But I want you to understand one thing. Like we spoke about last time. That the Madhahib in Fiqh.
And I understand your point that it's difficult in Fiqh and Aqidah. No problem. The Madhahib in Fiqh.
They were humans who were attempting to understand the Quran. The Sunnah. And the companions.
In Aqidah. These are also human attempts to try and understand the Quran. Sunnah.
And the companions. You might disagree with them. They might get it wrong.
You might say this goes against the Quran. But it's their interpretation of the Quran. That's my point.
What I'm saying to you is that these issues have unanimously been agreed upon. Okay. Let me just speak about one of these issues.
What do you think? Okay. So that's what I want to go through a few points. And then show you.
Right now. Do we all agree? And every Muslim would agree. The Quran.
And the Sunnah. And the companions is the way forward. Yes.
Yeah. Ash'aera don't agree with that. They do.
Okay. Let me quote the Imams. Okay.
Go on. Why? I don't understand. They come out openly and say that they do.
Ah. They say no. They say they don't.
Listen to this. They're going to talk. I'm going to bring their references.
And their statements. I'm going to bring those four horsemen I mentioned. And I'm going to mention other people.
Anyone I mention from the Ash'aera is not someone they're going to deny. Okay. Go on.
I'm mentioning bona fide people in their field. To show you that these people. The differences with us is a fundamental issue.
And I'm going to prove today inshallah that Ash'aera today. Ash'aera that we know today. Are not Ash'aera of the early way of Abul Hasan Ash'aeri.
The Ash'aera of today are Jahmiya Mahd. They are Jahmiya. They are the Jahmiya that Ahmad ibn Hamad spoke against.
That Imam al-Shafi'i spoke against. And the great scholars of Islam spoke against. And I'm not going to prove it from what Ibn Taymiyya said about them.
Or what Ibn Qayyim said about them. I'm going to prove from what they said about themselves. And what they mentioned in their creed or books.
I'll be surprised if today you can prove that. Because everybody knows they are Shi'a for example. They go against those three things.
They go against the companions for example. Very very clearly and openly. But they are Ash'aera and the mainstream Sunni Islam.
They all agree with those three things. So how are you going to prove it out? Look at Fakhruddin al-Razi. I want everybody to open their minds.
If you are listening, write this down. If you think I'm... go to it yourself. Check it out.
He has a Kitab called Ta'sees al-Taqdis. There's a book called Ta'sees al-Taqdis. I mentioned that before.
It's the Kitab Ibn Taymiyya refuted him. In his Darul Ta'ariz al-Aql wal-Naqal. Go to page 172.
He says, اعلم know ان الدلائل القطعية العقلية Pardon me here. Step by step. He says know that the clear logical evidences.
First two. So clear, cut, logical arguments. Okay.
اذا قامت على ثبوت شيئا If it proves the reality of something and that something is firm. And if the Aql says this is what this is. Again, he referred to the Aql as what? القطعية العقلية الدلائل القطعية العقلية The Aql is number one.
قطعية Clear cut. And it's also if it proves the reality of something and it affirms something. The Aql affirms something.
ثم وجدنا Then we find ادل النقلية And then we find a textual evidences. يشعر بخلاف ذلك That opposes that logic. The دلائل القطعية العقلية He says فها هنا لا يقل الحال من احد امورين اربع Four situations we have to deal with this issue.
Shahid, please listen. He's going to tell us. He's saying that the Aql and the Naql are contradicting one another.
The Aql said yes. And the Naql said no. Okay.
He's saying what do we do here? Four steps. The first step is إما أن نصدق مقتضى العقل والنقل فيلزم تصديق النقل دين وهو محال We take both of them. And he says two opposites cannot be taken.
That's an illogical absurdity. Okay, number one. Let's go.
Number two وإما أن نبطلهما The second one is that we reject both of them. We say we don't take the Aql or the Naql. He says فيلزم تقريب النقل دين That means we would reject the two opposites which also is an illogical absurdity because we're going to be forced to do one in reality.
Let's also get rid of that. How many options are we left with? Two. Two more.
The third option he says is وإما أن نصدق ظواهر النقلية that we take the clear-cut textual evidences. What do we do? ونكذب الظواهر العقلية and we disbelieve in our logic. وذلك باطل.
Okay. What's the issue here? Probably here. I'm going to mention the fourth option that he brings.
Repeat it again. The Aql and the Naql are contradicting one another. فقر الدين الرازي said we can't take both of them.
That's an illogical absurdity. The second option he said that we disbelieve in both of them. He said it's also an illogical absurdity.
The third option is we take the textual evidences and we ignore the logical arguments and he said وذلك باطل. That's باطل, null and void. We can't do that.
We can't give precedence to the text over the logic. We can't. The fourth option he said is what? The fourth option is we take the أدلة العقلية.
We take the what? The عقل. And the دلة العقلية we take over the نقلية. And he said we take the أدلة العقلية over أدلة العقلية we take it over the أدلة النقلية.
How do we do that? The text is still standing in front of us. So we took the عقل. We're going to take the عقل he said.
And we're going to dismiss the نقل. But what are we going to do with the نقل? He said what we do with the نقل is the following. Either we say إنها غير صحيحة.
It's weak. And if it's still weak it's really one of those ones Bukhari or Muslim narrated it. Or إن كانت صحيحة.
But it's صحيح and there's no way to disprove it's صحيح. What do we do? We refer back to by saying إلا أن المراد منها غير ظاهرها. The intent is not the apparent meaning.
ثم إن جوزنا التأويل We go to distort the meaning. We play around with the meaning. We can't.
وإن لم يجيزوا التأويل التأويل is not seem to be working for us. فوضنا العلم بها إلى الله. We do تفويض which is another مسلك.
We say Allah knows what it means. قُنْدِهِ الشَّهِد What is it that they did? فَقْرُ الدِّينَ الرَّازِيُّ Gave precedence to that logic over the text. And with that premise he comes to the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
So he's going to believe what the أقل has affirmed. When he looks at the Qur'an and the Sunnah the أقل won't move for anyone. The أقل is going to stand still.
The أقل is going to be the رئيس. These texts they're going to be distorted and they're going to be either ignored and said Allah and his Messenger just read letters for us. We don't know what it means.
So when you see them interpret verses to a meaning that you're thinking this is what they came to it's not because they believe the Qur'an and the Sunnah to be a source of legislation. Well, let's go back a step because what part of that in your mind goes against the Qur'an? The Qur'an takes precedence over our أقل. The Qur'an tells you to use your أقل that's the bit you're misunderstanding.
The argument Shahid is not whether we use our أقل or not. It's the concept that the أقل first of all the Qur'an and the Sunnah this Qur'an and Sunnah do not go against the sound mind. That's number one.
That premise itself is an illogical absurdity. Ibn Taymiyyah refutes him on that issue and proves him wrong on that issue. That a sound mind does not go against authentic evidence.
That doesn't happen. I mean, that's disputable. Obviously, it can.
There are some things that our mind can't understand. Ibn Taymiyyah said, okay, show us. But the thing with these people I want you to understand is that the أقل to them has no restriction.
Again, we believe the أقل has restriction just like your eyesight has restriction. If I switch off the light in this room you can't actually see. So I'll give you an example.
You believe Allah descends to the lowest heaven. Is that correct? The last third of the night. You believe Allah descends in the last third of the night.
The Prophet said that Allah descends the last third of the night. It is the last third of the night everywhere in the world at some point in time. Agreed? You see, what happened right now is the minute you heard these characteristics you started to, you know, logically try to.
See, these people who distort Allah's name and attribute, Shahid, they accuse us of being مشبهة. You're making Allah similar to his creation, correct? But the truth of the matter is as the poets, as the Arabs say رَمَتْنِي بِدَائِهَا وَانْسَلَّتْ You're accusing me of what you have. They're the ones that when they saw these characteristics in their mind straight away تشبيه came to their mind.
And then they want to fight with what's come to their mind. Okay. By fighting that, what do they do? They go to تحطيل, distort the meaning.
And we're going to go into And then they go back to تشبيه by the way again. And we're going to go into this in a lot more detail next week where we're going to go into the names and attributes of Allah. But I just want to fix this example because you haven't answered my question.
No but Shahid, what's happening here is that and this is the point I really want many brothers who تحقوا أشاعر talk to أشاعر debate with أشاعر prove them wrong. I just want them to understand one thing أشاعر is not an ayah that they've just happened to misunderstand it. They've interpreted it in that way.
It's not ظواهر النصوص the textual evidences is not a proof to these people. Let me give you another statement. I'm sorry, no no wait one second.
I don't want you to move on this because I want you to understand something. Because you're looking at it from your perspective, and I can understand where you're looking at it, but I want you to understand the other person's perspective.
When you hear about that Allah descends to those, you say— and someone asks you, "How does He do it?" — you say الله أعلم. We don’t. You have just done what? فخر الدين الرازي is exactly saying that عقل doesn’t understand, so we make تفويض — we say الله أعلم. You say the same thing with the كيفية — your عقل can’t understand the كيفية, the howness, so you make تفويض.
Allah told us, سبحانه وتعالى, in the Qur’an. Again, I'm not choosing what I want to believe and what I want to do تفويض — neither are they. They don’t say they’re choosing — yes they are, that’s your claim on them, no شاهد.
أشاعرة — they came to Allah’s names and attributes as a… يعني it was something else they were discussing and this is where it led to after that. In other words, أشاعرة — they were trying to prove Allah’s existence originally. The discussion with these people — the معتزلة, these people, originally the متكلمين, not just أشاعرة, but the متكلمين in general — they were trying to prove Allah’s existence (وجود الله), and they fell into an issue they call دليل الأعراض and حدوث الأجسام.
To prove Allah’s existence, we have to prove Allah is قديم, meaning that Allah, تبارك وتعالى, always has existed. From that moment onwards, to prove Allah’s existence trickled down to the names and attributes of Allah. Because they’ve already placed an argument to prove Allah’s existence — once they’ve done that (and I don’t want to now go into دليل الأعراض and حدوث الأجسام, maybe if we go to the issue of أسماء وصفات podcast, we might talk about it there, insha’Allah) — لكن they have this point that they want to prove Allah exists.
Now that they’ve proven — which is a good thing, I mean, it's good, it's not a bad thing like you’re making it look like it’s a bad thing — not in the way they proved it — no, it’s a good thing to want to prove that Allah exists. But the Christians, the Jews, do that as well. The point I'm trying to come to is that it’s how you do it — it’s not necessarily what you… the أشاعرة, the متكلمين, when they fell into this ورطة, they said these characteristics (أعراض), these characteristics, if we affirm them for Allah and they're happening, that means Allah, تبارك وتعالى, didn’t exist necessarily — which again, I don’t really want to go into it… let’s be detailed.
Once they believed an argument, they said… they got these verses:
- الرحمن على العرش استوى
- ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والإكرام
- وجاء ربك والملك صفا صفا
- وجوه يومئذ ناظرة إلى ربها ناظرة
I mean, these آيات الصفات came up. Scratch their heads and they said:
وكل نص أوهم تشبيهًا أوّله أو فوضه رُم تنزيهًا
Any characteristic that comes to you — تأويل أو تفويض.
يعني, it's not just a one-off situation where they misunderstood or they held on to a hadith which was weak or… this is an idea that comes from: the logic is the أصل and the نصوص, the two revelations, the وحيان, are فروع.
Do you not think… do you not think that they're actually holding on to an ayah?
No, they’re not — and that’s what makes them do this. No, it’s just the way. I wish that was the case. No, it’s not. Let me give you more.
Sanusi — he’s one of the great books they study. His كتاب — he’s got a كتاب called الشرح الكبرى — he mentions, he says:
وأما من زعم أن الطريقة إلى معرفة الحق الكتاب والسنة ويحرم ما سواهما فالرد عليه أن حجيتهما لا تعرف إلا بالنظر العقلي
Anyone who claims the path to know the truth is the كتاب and the سنة, and it is حرام to look at any other way — the refutation on him is: their حجية (proof authority) is not even known except through نظر عقلي (intellectual reasoning).
So he's going to refute a person who said the way to know the truth, and to know what is حق, is the كتاب and the سنة. He said that it’s not allowed for you to look at any other thing. Like Shafi’i said: Don’t look at علم الكلام. They believe if you don’t look at علم الكلام, you can’t know the truth. That’s the أصل.
So he's saying here anyone who claims that the way to know the truth is the Kitab and the Sunnah, the refutation on this person is the following: "هَـا رَجُلٌ شَاهِدٌ." Imagine I said this to you — they believe it's من أصول الكفر — it's disbelief in Allah to say "I'm going to hold on to the Qur'an and Sunnah." They don't mean it like that — that's شَاهِد.
How do you know the truth of the Qur'an and Sunnah? Let me read these people's statements to you, and insha’Allah ta'ala let a lot of people understand — this issue between us and them is not just an ayah that's been misunderstood wrong, an interpretation that happened to be misunderstood, or it's not Sanusi who died in 885 — it's their imam in Jamia’ al-Azhar. His kutub are taught — he's a reference for these people. Any Ash’ari who's watching today will not dispute the imam, the jalal of these people.
In Sharh al-Kubra, he mentioned — it’s taught in our country as well — it's من عقائد السبعة they call it. He says أصول الكفر ستة — the foundations of disbelief are six. Okay — ستة yeah, six. He says the foundation — what did I say? You said seven. Seven? Sorry, he says أصول الكفر ستة — the foundation of disbelief is six.
He mentioned five and then look what he said after that. He said:
سادساً — the sixth one is what?
والتمسك في أصول العقائد بمجرد ظواهر الكتاب والسنة — by holding onto the Kitab and the Sunnah in initial ‘Aqeedah matters من غير بصيرة — without having any insight and knowledge of ‘aql.
هو أصل ضلال الحشوية التشبيه — and he said this is the foundation of the Hashwiyyah. Hashwiyyah, by the way, is Ahl al-Sunnah — they refer to Ahl al-Sunnah as Hashwiyyah. And they said this is the reason why they fell into tashbih.
Okay shahid, he’s saying we fell into tashbih by holding onto the apparent verses of the Qur’an. Shahid, this is an issue I want —
So in other words, in other words — the Qur’an is a form of disbelief — by holding onto the Qur’an if you take it in a certain way, which we’d all say, right? If you take the Qur’an in a certain way — what you say to someone — holding onto the apparent wording of the Qur’an is disbelief.
So what I’m trying to say — there are certain ayat like that though, right? What? Certain hadith — like Bukhari for example — about a man who is so righteous that his eyes become like the eyes of Allah, and his ears become like the ears of Allah that he hears with — if you took that upon the zāhir, of course it’s going to be kufr — what do you mean?
Like holding onto what?
Holding onto the apparent meaning of — literally — “my eyes are going to be the eyes of Allah, that I'm seeing”? The hadith doesn’t say that. But what's the hadith say?
You can understand where they're coming from — that’s what I'm saying. They’re not talking about the whole Qur’an like you're making out — they're talking about certain ayat that cannot be interpreted this way.
Shahid, let's slowly — let’s look at it slowly. I think this Bukhari hadith — no one can argue for this. And I’d like to hear the Ashā’irah respond to this point to be honest — to say holding onto what he's saying is holding onto the apparent meaning of the Qur’an and the Sunnah — and he’s saying:
والتمسك في أصول العقائد — not an issue of fiqh — ‘Aqeedah, to hold onto the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
And he didn’t say, “if you don’t go to the understanding of the Salafi” — and maybe he got a point here. Even to say kufr is too strong — because he said bid’ah — but he said من غير بصيرة في العقل — without having studied, basically, ‘ilm al-kalām and logic.
He's saying this is why these guys are falling into what they fell into. Is that all he says?
Shahid, in our books of ‘Aqeedah — when Ibn Abdul Wahhab and other scholars cite, they mention: أعلم أرشدك الله لطاعته أن الحنيفية ملة إبراهيم والدليل قوله تعالى... Things like that, right?
Sanusi has a matn called Umm al-Barāhīn — and it's also referred to as al-Sanūsiyyah al-Ṣughrā. He says بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم, starts the book, he said: الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله. اعلم أن الحكم العقلي ينحصر في ثلاثة أقسام: الوجوب، والاستحالة، والجواز. He says: اعلم أن الحكم العقلي — he was studying ‘Aqeedah book, by the way. This is an ‘Aqeedah book taught in al-Azhar. Ashā’irah study this book. It’s one of the mutūn that they study.
He started by saying: اعلم أن الحكم العقلي — first line — the hukm ‘aqlī is restricted to three things: al-wujūb, something that must exist; al-istihālah, something that’s impossible for it to exist; and something that can possibly exist.
al-Bājūrī explains on that — Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī, who has a sharh on it. Look what he says. He said: إنما اختصر المصنف — the author here, i.e. Sanusi — restricted himself على الحكم العقلي. He restricted himself in this book of ‘Aqeedah — he restricted himself to the hukm ‘aqlī دون أخويه — he left the other two brothers of his.
What are the two other brothers? وهما الحكم العادي والشرعي — he didn’t mention hukm ‘ādī, and he also didn’t mention hukm shar‘ī.
He only restricted himself to the hukm ‘aqlī in this book because: لأنه المحتاج إليه في هذا الفن دونهما — that’s what’s needed in this science of ‘Aqeedah. Hukm shar‘ī is not needed, and hukm ‘ādī is not needed in the science of ‘Aqeedah.
Shahid, these people don’t believe the Qur’an and the Sunnah is an evidence. They don’t believe that — and we’re talking about not issues of fiqh — we’re talking about issues of fundamental beliefs.
There’s a kitab called — are they talking about the fitrah here? That’s what, like —
No, no, no — he didn’t say fitrah. No, but that is — the ‘Aqeedah is like part of the fitrah that Allah gives us, right? He gives us the ‘Aqeedah as well — the fitrah gives us —
Again, it's a good point that you brought that up. The fitrah proves the general points of ‘Aqeedah, okay. But like in detailed issues of ‘Aqeedah — if fitrah is enough, why would Allah send prophets and messengers to explain to us — Allah subḥānahu wa ta'āla — for fiqh and how to worship Him?
So the Prophet ﷺ telling us Allah’s names and attributes — we could have known all of that through the fitrah?
How you make du‘ā’ to Him — that’s part of worship?
No — again — the fitrah can bring you to the truth. The fitrah proves Allah’s existence. But to know Allah Ta‘ālā bittafṣīl — Allah says: وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا ۚ مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَانُ وَلَٰكِنْ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُورًا نَّهْدِي بِهِ مَن نَّشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا ۚ وَإِنَّكَ لَتَهْدِي إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ
Allah says to Muhammad — greatest man to walk on this earth — Allah Ta‘ālā says: وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا ۚ مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَانُ
You didn’t know these issues, Muhammad. الإيمان here that’s been referred to — the scholars said it is tafsīl al-īmān — detailed issues of īmān. You didn’t know that.
So why would Allah say in the Qur’an: رُسُلًا مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ لِئَلَّا يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى اللَّهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ
The reason why Allah sent messengers — as warners and to give glad tidings — is so the people don’t have a proof on the Day of Judgment against Allah. And Allah is teaching us Himself through the message of the Prophet ﷺ.
So فذاك ملاك الله — Allah is known through the ‘aql?
There’s a book called al-Qarīḍah al-Bahiyyah — it’s written by Abu al-Barakāt Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Dardīr — he wrote it.
He says — look what he says — it’s an ‘Aqeedah book — it’s an ‘Aqeedah book they study. Look what he says. He says:
أقسام حكم العقل لا محالة هي الوجوب ثم الاستحالة ثم الجواز ثالث الأقسام فافهم نحت لذة الأفهام
He says — it’s an ‘Aqeedah book. It’s the beginning. He finished the Bismillah and the ḥamdalah — and then he says:
أقسام حكم العقل لا محالة — just exactly what Sanusi mentioned.
Then I went to the sharḥ of Aḥmad al-Sāwī — Aḥmad al-Sāwī — he has a ḥāshiyah on Jalālayn — Jalālayn by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Maḥallī and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī. When he comes to Sūrat al-Kahf — that’s a side benefit I just want to mention.
Aḥmad al-Sāwī — when he comes to Sūrat al-Kahf, he says: from the Uṣūl al-Kufr is also to hold onto ẓawāhir al-nuṣūṣ. I didn’t bring that point for this point, but look at that.
Anyways, he commented on the statement of Aḥmad al-Dardīr — he says, Aḥmad al-Sāwī, he says:
إنما اختصر المصنف — the reason why the muṣannif here mentioned the aḥkām al-‘aql — كغيره من المتكلمين — like the other mutakallimīn have also done is:
لأن مباحث هذا الفن لا تخرج عنه — because this subject, ‘Aqeedah, doesn’t leave ‘aql — this one is restricted to.
Okay — again — let me just — I think people really need to understand who we’re dealing with.
al-Bājūrī has a risālah called ‘Ilm al-Tawḥīd.
By the way, these are books that we study. There is just one contention—sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt—there is one contention I want to bring in at this point. A lot of people say that Ibrahim عليه السلام also used the عقل to prove the existence of God or the existence of Allah. Again, the ayah needs تفسير from us; it needs explanation from us. And to be honest, the ayah has no relationship with what these people are saying.
Bayjuri has a رسالة called علم التوحيد. He says: فيجب في حقه تعالى. So this is an عقيدة book; it's علم التوحيد, it's called. You can study توحيد—you're an أشعري, this is the book you were taught, you learn it. Ibrahim البيجوري is considered Shaykh al-Islam for them; they call him Shaykh al-Islam Ibrahim البيجوري. Look what he says—it is a عقيدة توحيد book. He says: فيجب في حقه تعالى.
By the way, I read the رسالة. I think there were only two verses he brought—two evidences he brought—the whole رسالة. By the way, two evidences. I don't want people to quote me on it, but I read this a long time ago. Was it two evidences or maximum three evidences he brought?
How long? How big are we talking? How many pages is it? Talking about like ثلاثة الأصول—something as small as that. Look at how he talks. I just want people to understand what عقيدة for them is. And Ibn عبد الرسالة, for example, or Ibn Taymiyyah—Ibn Taymiyyah if you haven't read—we studied it: والدليل قوله تعالى. So three, four pages—it’s just دليل. Ibn عبد الرسالة, every time: والدليل قوله تعالى. والدليل—صح—that’s very common in it.
Look what he does. He says: فيجب في حقه تعالى الوجود—for Allah تبارك وتعالى, existence is a must. وضده العدم—the opposite to existence is not to exist. والدليل—you’re waiting for آية, Quran, right? He says: والدليل على ذلك وجود المخلوقات—the evidence for that is the existence of the creation. صحيحة والله، أعوذ بالله—it’s something to be shocked with. A people study this as a form of توحيد.
He says: ويجب في حقه تعالى القدم—in Allah تبارك وتعالى, He’s always existed. ومعناه—that means أنه لا أول له—that there’s no one before Him, He’s the first. وضده الحدوث—the opposite to القدم is what? حدوث—something that comes about. والدليل—you’re waiting for an ayah and a hadith, right? He says: والدليل على ذلك أنه لو كان حادثًا لاحتاج إلى محدث وهو محال.
ويجب في حقه تعالى البقاء، ومعناه أنه تعالى لا آخر له. والدليل—you’re waiting for an ayah from the Quran—He says: والدليل على ذلك أنه لو كان فانيًا لكان حادثًا وهو محال.
ويجب في حقه تعالى المخالفة للحوادث، ومعناه أنه تعالى ليس مماثلًا للحوادث، فليس له يد ولا عين ولا أذن ولا غير ذلك من الصفات الحوادث. ضدها المماثلة. والدليل—you’re waiting for an ayah—والدليل على ذلك أنه لو كان مماثلًا للحوادث لكان حادثًا، وهو محال.
He negates Allah’s names and attributes with not one ayah or hadith. So: ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير—is just to يعني عامة الناس, the general mass, to calm them down and say: relax, it's fine, we do use ayahs in Quran. Wallahi, those people who are sympathizers of the Ashʿāʾirah and are also the sympathizers of the Mutakallimeen—you just take one point from me: look at their lectures and their reminders and their works. The Quran and the Sunnah are very little, because they don’t see it as a proof.
You hear a guy who says: I’m studied, I know aqeedah, that’s my field of expertise. He does a whole entire podcast، ولا يستدل بآية. They won’t use one ayah, he won’t use a hadith. He would give a whole entire lecture. Why are you like this? The reason is because the evidence...
Shahid, I want to say something, and I really want people to take this on board—because this is a very dangerous part. Which is: what are we dealing with today? We’re dealing with very serious ideologies out there. If a people just dismiss the Quran like that, who have they opened the door for? If you say عقل to the people, you are now letting ISIS exist. You’re breeding an ideology of ISIS. Of course you are! You’re telling everybody: عقل. ISIS quote the Quran, hadith—we have nothing against ISIS if we say: everybody use your عقل. They’re going to be like: whoa, I’m using my عقل—that’s why I bombed these people. My عقل told me these people are not innocent, I should kill them. You open the door to كل من هب ودب.
So fighting with these people is very important—it’s not a light issue.
I also now want to go into another issue to show you these people are very dangerous—even in their concept of إيمان.
I don’t think that contention was answered properly. You just said it requires tafseer. But I’ve heard multiple people use this: Ibrahim عليه السلام did use the عقل to prove Allah’s existence. He’s a Prophet, from the greatest five Prophets. And you’re saying now that this is a wrong methodology?
Ibrahim عليه السلام said that Allah’s words are not evidences? Did Ibrahim عليه السلام say Allah’s words should not be taken into consideration? Did Ibrahim عليه السلام say if the عقل and the words of Allah come together, we give precedence to our logic over the statements of Allah?
We should know that what evidence we use—it shouldn’t be like the man who said: Mawlid is permissible. And he was asked: what’s your evidence? Is it that they don’t look at Ibrahim عليه السلام? Anyone can mock the religion like that. You’ve got a دليل—what are you using it for? You can’t just pull a verse out of somewhere.
By the way, we’re not saying عقل cannot be used for aqeedah—we’re not saying that. Again, I did say it before—I said that a sound mind will not contradict the authentic evidences. And the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah do prove that. Shaykh Abu al-Husayn, when he refuted—he debunked him on these issues from a rational perspective as well and showed him that the Qur’an and the Sunnah don’t contradict each other. Sorry—the Qur’an and the Sunnah don’t contradict the عقل. Rather, they complement one another.
Ibrahim عليه السلام did use logic, and we do use that—to them we prove it logically that the Qur’an and the Sunnah go in line with the sound mind.
That being said, if there comes an issue I can't understand, I need to know my mind—my ‘aql—is restricted. It's qāṣir (limited). And the one that's superior is the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
I gave you an example before. I said to you: the eyes of a person are restricted. You can't see everything. The distance of how far you can see is very restricted. If I switch off this light in this room right now, you won't be able to see me—but your eyes are still functioning.
The ‘aql also needs evidence like that to support it. The light for the ‘aql is the revelation.
How do you interpret revelation without the ‘aql? I just said that to you before. The Qur’an and the Sunnah—there are issues which are fundamental, which Islam and the Muslims have all agreed upon. There are issues in the religion that are fundamental. We've agreed on these issues.
Let me just give you some—sorry, I’m sorry to stick on it—but this thing that you just brought as an example: my eyesight, you're saying, is like the ‘aql. It's limited. And the lights are the nuṣūṣ al-waḥy—the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
If my ‘aql is limited and I can't see past a certain distance, it doesn't matter what lights are on—I'm still not going to be able to see it. Like, my ‘aql is limited. So I get to an ayah—I don’t understand it. And I will never understand it. I cannot understand it because my ‘aql is limited.
First of all, you have to understand: what you don’t understand doesn’t mean everybody else doesn’t understand it. It might be something to you. It might be a problem with you.
Surrender to the nuṣūṣ al-waḥy.
What I’m trying to say, Shahid, here right now—and really I’m trying to drive this point home—is: these people, the ‘aql takes precedence over every single thing.
Let me give you—to show you these issues are agreed upon, and you just have to surrender—they still say: “No, it doesn’t rationally make sense to me.”
Let me give you an example: Mas’alat al-īmān. I have to show this as an example.
It was narrated from Imām al-Bukhārī authentically. Imām al-Bukhārī said:
"Laqeetu akthara min alfi rajulin min al-‘ulamā’." “I met more than a thousand men from the scholars.”
More than a thousand. Who is this? Imām al-Bukhārī. He said:
"Laqeetu akthara min alfi rajulin min al-‘ulamā’ bil-amṣār." “I met them in all different places.” Not in one restricted area—amṣār (cities).
Look what he said:
"Famā ra’aytu aḥadan minhum yakhtalifu fī anna al-īmāna qawl wa ‘amal." “I did not see one of them differing on the fact that īmān is speech and action.”
"Wa yazīdu wa yanquṣ." “That īmān increases and decreases.”
This consensus has also been transmitted. Lālakā’ī transmitted it from who? He transmitted it from:
- Imām al-Shāfiʿī
- Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal
- Imām Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh
- Abū ʿUbayd
The Qur’an says there is no difference of opinion on this issue. There is ijmāʿ.
Allah mentions it in the Qur’an. Allah says:
"Innamā al-mu’minūna alladhīna idhā dhukira Allāhu wajilat qulūbuhum." “The believers are those whose hearts tremble when Allah is mentioned.”
"Wa idhā tuliyat ʿalayhim āyātuhu zādathum īmānan." “And when His verses are recited to them, it increases them in īmān.”
"Wa ʿalā rabbihim yatawakkalūn." “They rely upon their Lord.”
Allah then says:
"Alladhīna yuqīmūna al-ṣalāt." “Those who establish the prayer.”
Ṣalāh is mentioned with īmān, which is an action.
"Wa mimmā razaqnāhum yunfiqūn." “And they spend from what We have provided them.”
Allah then says:
"Ūlā’ika humu al-mu’minūna ḥaqqā." “These are the true believers.”
"Lahum darajātun ʿinda rabbihim, wa maghfirah, wa rizqun karīm." “For them are ranks with their Lord, forgiveness, and a generous provision.”
What do they believe about īmān?
Ashʿāʾirah — what do they believe about īmān? What’s their view regarding īmān?
Al-Imām al-Bāqillānī, in his Kitāb al-Insāf, says: Believing in Allāh Taʿālā is just to believe in your heart. Shāhid, no actions. You don’t even have to say anything. According to the Ashʿāʾirah, all you have to do is believe in your heart.
Juwaynī says the same. He says: What is pleasing to us is... the īmān to us is what? It’s the one who believes in Allāh — the mu’min is the one who affirms Allāh in his heart.
What did he say? He said — Shāhid, I just brought you what? Al-Imām al-Bukhārī. He was saying the Qur’ān. I just mentioned to you: Allāh mentions ṣalāh, Allāh Taʿālā mentions zakāh, which is ṣadaqah, giving your wealth, and Allāh Taʿālā mentions the recitation of the Qur’ān — all of that, which are actions.
They say īmān is not [that], because... the Qur’ān is... they believe something... their heads have got something convinced. The Qur’ān does [mention it]. If you bring it to an Ashʿarī, he’ll say: “Allāh Taʿālā...” He’ll say to you: “How do you know?” All of that is a smokescreen.
Īmān is seventy-odd or sixty-odd branches. The ḥadīth says: The highest level is what? Lā ilāha illa Allāh. And the lowest of it is what? To remove harm from the path. Shyness is part of al-īmān.
Bukhārī and Muslim both narrate in their Ṣaḥīḥ, on the authority of Abū Hurayrah, the Prophet ﷺ is saying īmān is actions. Lā ilāha illa Allāh is īmān. To them, it’s not.
Yeah, okay. So what you're saying in summary is that we defined Ahl al-Sunnah — the people of the Sunnah — as being people who take the Qur’ān, the Sunnah, and understand it through the companions. And we all affirm that. And you brought many evidences to prove that’s the point. And it’s not something that a parent won’t disagree with — either that definition or Ahl al-Sunnah.
So let me just mention one more quote on this particular point. There’s a man who they look up to. His name is Burhānuddīn Ibrāhīm ibn Hārūn al-Laqqānī. Ibrāhīm al-Laqqānī is known — he’s got a matn in Tawḥīd. It’s called Jawharat al-Tawḥīd. That kitāb is taught in our country. It’s from the ʿAqāʾid al-Sabʿa, they call it. And it’s one of those books you have to study in Ashʿarī tadarruj.
You know how you have al-Tawḥīd, Jawharat al-Tawḥīd has an explanation on it — which is the one I keep referencing from: al-Bayjūrī’s Tuhfat al-Murīd.
Now I’m going to mention what Ibrāhīm al-Laqqānī said, and then I’m going to... the explanation, I’m not going to take it from anybody else except them — Bayjūrī’s explanation.
Okay, fine. He said īmān has been explained as just to believe in Allāh, and there is a dispute in whether the utterance of that word matters. And they’re disputing whether a person who wants to come into Islām — would he be a Muslim or not if he doesn’t say it? There’s a dispute amongst themselves.
And the jumhūr of them believe what? It’s not [necessary]. Look what Bayjūrī said in Tuhfat al-Murīd when he explained the word. He said: Anyone who believes in his heart but does not state it on his tongue — Shāhid — there’s no reason that’s preventing him from it, and it’s not like he can’t speak, he’s mute, it’s none of that. And it’s not also out of arrogance why he doesn’t want to say it — it just happened to be the case — in the eyes of Allāh, he’s a believer. But in this world, we won’t consider him a believer. When you look at him, he doesn’t say “believer,” but really, in reality, he’s a believer.
“Let the first thing that you call them to be: Lā ilāha illa Allāh.” Also, the Prophet ﷺ said: “Say Lā ilāha illa Allāh — say Lā ilāha illa Allāh — you’ll find success.”
When he came to his uncle Abū Ṭālib, and Abū Ṭālib was on his deathbed — you don’t think Abū Ṭālib believed in the Prophet’s Prophethood? He’s establishing the Prophet’s Prophethood.
Yeah, but it’s not the same as īmān, is it? Like, in his heart — īmān is the heart. He believed in the Prophet. Īmān is wider than that. He believed in his heart the Prophet’s Prophethood. He believed in the message of Nabīllāh Muḥammad ﷺ. He said: “If it wasn’t for the blame of my forefathers…” If it wasn’t [for that] — that’s why they believe Abū Ṭālib is a believer. That’s another discussion — Abū Ṭālib is a Muslim to them.
Okay. You don’t... like, I always try and be just and fair and think: Where are they getting this from? You don’t think that the āyāt that say Allāh knows what’s in your chest — isn’t that enough to show that this person is a Muslim, that he believes, he has īmān in his chest, and he just doesn’t utter it?
Maybe they’re interpreting these āyāt and taking it as part of their belief. I’m just saying that — you’re looking at the nuṣūṣ in one way, they’re looking at it in another way. Can’t we just be fair and say that you’re both trying ijtihād?
Innā lillāh... I just mentioned the Qur’ān referred to... to them, ṣalāh is not part of īmān. And I really want you to understand — īmān is only... this is not just only the belief of the misguided group — these guys are the extremist form of the... the extremist. That’s the Ashʿarī’s belief, Shāhid.
If there would be any way to look at these people and say there is a chance for them to be [upon truth], I would say it. I wouldn’t [hide it]. I know people are going to watch this. I know thousands of people are going to watch this. And I know every single statement I’ve said will be looked at. It will be [scrutinized].
I know when they watch this, they’re going to try to look through it. But anyone who’s muṣīf, who’s just, who knows that Yawm al-Qiyāmah, he’s going to stand in front of Allāh, Yawm al-Qiyāmah, he’s going to be questioned, interrogated — and if he lies, Allāh Taʿālā will make his body parts speak — he would question this. He would question all of this.
And you’ve been quoted from their scholars — not your scholars. That’s one thing I made sure. Everything I spoke, you — Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī mentioned. Fakhruddīn al-Rāzī said. Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī. Abū Maʿālī al-Juwaynī. Ibrāhīm al-Bayjūrī. Ibrāhīm al-Laqqānī. What they — Sanūsī — what they said.
I’m not going to say Ibn Taymiyyah said about them this — nah. They’ve testified to this.
Okay. Do you know what increases the issue in problems? Do you believe or do you know.
That the Ashāʿirah believe that the Qur’an is created — that’s definitely not what they say. Ashāʿirah believe that the Qur’an that we have today is makhlūq. Everything Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal was fighting against when it came to the Muʿtazilah, and the reason why he was imprisoned, and the whole entire reason Muḥammad al-Hudhāʿī was killed, and al-Buwayṭī, the student of Imām al-Shāfiʿī, was killed — and, yaʿnī, Aḥmad was lashed and beaten — and the whole reason Ibn Abī Duʿād and Bishr al-Marīsī and all these guys, the whole entire khilāf that you saw that happened — the Ashāʿirah today adopted the ideology that the Qur’an is makhlūq.
What do I mean? Allah told us that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah. Allah says in the Qur’an: وَرُسُلًا قَدْ قَصَصْنَاهُمْ عَلَيْكَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَرُسُلًا لَمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَيْكَ وَكَلَّمَ اللَّهُ مُوسَىٰ تَكْلِيمًا. Allah tells that He spoke to Nabī Allāh Mūsā. We know Allah has characteristics which He affirms.
They deceive the people — hence why their ideology spread. And in shāʾ Allāh, I’m going to mention that as we speak further, in shāʾ Allāh, if I get the chance to. They're very deceptive. They have something for the general mass and the people, and they have something in their private circles for the people of knowledge.
Yeah — okay, what's the issue? So what's the issue with that — of teaching people at their level? You teach in advance to begin the class — what's the problem? You're not saying to someone, "I'm going to teach you about the doubts of other groups." That could be for advanced students of knowledge, who can handle it, who have the knowledge for it.
We're talking about our ideology. We tell something to the general mass so they just know and they calm down, and when it comes to circles of knowledge, we really tell what we really believe.
How do you know their intentions? I’ll come to it. I’ll quote you. What if it's just an issue of advanced and beginner? Everything I will mention — what they said.
Ashāʿirah say to the people: there are seven characteristics we affirm. From those seven characteristics is kalām. When you see that, you think, Allāhumma bārik, they actually affirm Allah’s speech. What they affirm is that the kalām that they affirm is the kalām which is qā’imun bi-dhāti-llāh — the speech that’s present in Allah.
I don’t know what that means. You wouldn’t understand what that means. No Arab, no scholar in the Arabic language, no sane person ever said “speech is what's inside you that doesn’t come out.” But to them, somehow it does. Why?
The ability to speak? No, not the ability — give me a second, I just thought about something. To them, that was speech. That was kalām. They're saying — and Allah is the greatest example, and there's nothing I can compare Him to, subḥānahu wa taʿālā, I’m not comparing Him to myself — but they're saying that the speech is present in Allah.
Okay, that is what they affirm as the speech of Allah. The Qur’an that we have today — that we’re reading, we’re making our children memorize, that we read in weddings, that if we want to make a person make an oath, we make him use this Qur’an, we swear by this Qur’an — they believe it’s makhlūq.
Are they talking about the papers? The muṣḥaf? Shahīd — the Qur’an that we’re reading, this whole entire Qur’an, is makhlūq to the Ashāʿirah.
Let me — first of all, so the aḥabbatu-n-nās know what the Qur’an is before I bring the shubhah to them — let me mention the verses to prove that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah. And makhlūq means — and I’ll explain what makhlūq means.
First of all, Allah tells us in the Qur’an: وَكَلَّمَ اللَّهُ مُوسَىٰ تَكْلِيمًا — Allah spoke to Nabī Allāh Mūsā. Also, Allah Taʿālā says: وَلَمَّا جَاءَ مُوسَىٰ لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ — Allah spoke to him. قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنظُرْ إِلَيْكَ قَالَ لَنْ تَرَانِي. Allah mentions: وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ — Allah spoke to Nabī Allāh Mūsā.
By the way, to be fair, a lot of the Shīʿah believe what happened between Nabī Allāh Mūsā and Allah subḥānahu wa taʿālā — a large number of them believe that was speech. So a large number of them affirm that. See, we mention what they say and we won’t take it away from them.
Also, Allah Taʿālā says in the Qur’an: وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَعْلَمُونَ.
Look what Allah says. He says: وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ — if one of the disbelievers comes to you and says to you, "Give me shelter," Allah said: give him shelter — protection — حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ — until he hears the speech of Allah. And then the speech of Allah is something that is heard. ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ — and then make him reach a safe place. ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَعْلَمُونَ — the reason for this is because they are people who don’t know.
Also, Allah Taʿālā says: سَيَقُولُ لَكَ الْمُخَلَّفُونَ إِذَا انطَلَقْتُمْ إِلَىٰ مَغَانِمَ لِتَأْخُذُوهَا ذَرُونَا نَتَّبِعْكُمْ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يُبَدِّلُوا كَلَامَ اللَّهِ.
By the way, this came in Surah Al-Fath. It's talking about the conquest of Makkah. Allah Ta'ala—He's saying about يُرِيدُونَ — "They want" — أَنْ يُبَدِّلُوا كَلَامَ اللَّهِ — "They want to change the speech of Allah." إِذَا النِّسْ قُرْآنَ — which is the Kalam of Allah. The Ash'āʾirah don’t consider this to be the Kalam of Allah. They believe this one is makhluq. Kalam Allah is the one which is قَائِمٌ بِذَاتِهِ. I'm going to come to this, in shāʾ Allāh.
Also Allah Ta'ala — He says: فَلَمَّا أَتَاهَا نُودِيَ مِن شَاطِئِ الْوَادِ الْأَيْمَنِ فِي الْبُقْعَةِ الْمُبَارَكَةِ مِنَ الشَّجَرَةِ أَيَّا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ Allah yelled to Mūsā. According to no language does nidāʾ become something that's not coming out of you. Nidāʾ means to call someone else.
So Allah also says: قَالَ رَبِّ اجْعَل لِّي آيَةً — This is one of the strongest evidences in the Qur'an to prove that Allah Ta'ala speaks with two things: حَرْفٌ وَصَوْتٌ — sound and words. Yes — Allah speaks with sound and words.
Nabī of Allah Zakariyyā — when he wanted to have a child, and Allah Ta'ala told him that he is going to have a child — he said to Allah: قَالَ رَبِّ اجْعَل لِّي آيَةً — "I want a sign that my wife is pregnant, and I want to know that she's pregnant and that the process has started." So he said: قَالَ رَبِّ اجْعَل لِّي آيَةً — "Oh Allah, make for me a sign." Allah said to him: قَالَ آيَتُكَ أَلَّا تُكَلِّمَ النَّاسَ ثَلَاثَ لَيَالٍ إِلَّا رَمْزًا — "Your sign is that you will not speak to people except through gestures."
Then Allah says: وَاذْكُرْ رَبَّكَ كَثِيرًا وَسَبِّحْ بِالْعَشِيِّ وَالْإِبْكَارِ. Shāhid — ponder here: Allah says: قَالَ آيَتُكَ أَلَّا تُكَلِّمَ النَّاسَ — The sign — the ʿalāmah — that's given to you, Zakariyyā, is that you will not be able to speak. If speech is something internal, Zakariyyā was speaking inside because he was doing ishārah — he was gesturing. He was telling them إِلَّا رَمْزًا — he was telling them to do this or that — be quiet. He was communicating through gestures.
But according to ishārah, is that kalam? So what's the benefit of: قَالَ آيَتُكَ أَلَّا تُكَلِّمَ النَّاسَ — "Do not speak to people"? The speech that's being negated here is حَرْفٌ وَصَوْتٌ. Zakariyyā will not be able to utter anything — and he said through gestures. Ramz means what? Allah will give you ishārah, you can point things out, but you're not going to be able to pronounce anything. Even though you're healthy — there's no illness with you — you're mute. You can't talk.
What is the kalam that Allah is negating here? The kalam Allah is negating here is what? To vocalize it, to utter things.
You understand why they call you the mushabbih for statements like this? When I say we affirm Allah's characteristics — by the way — we're not saying we affirm Allah's characteristics in the way the creation has it. You just said "with sounds and words" — the same way you speak with sound and words — you're just saying Allah speaks with sound and words?
No — but I'm saying — Allah says I speak. And speech is only in the Arabic language because Allah is too good to say it in Arabic? The Qur'an is in Arabic language. Arabs know the word kalam to mean حرف و صوت. That's all they know it as. Number one — you have to know that — that's important.
Arabs are humans, right? But Allah tells you He sent the Qur'an in the language of the people. It makes no sense that the Arabs unanimously understand kalam to mean حرف و صوت, and Allah means something else. When Allah is saying in the Qur'an: يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْ وَيَهْدِيَكُمْ سُنَنَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ — Allah wants to clarify things to you, Allah wants to guide you.
How can you say Allah is too good to… Their argument would be: "It can't be with words and sounds, because that's how we speak. And Allah is not like us in any way, shape or form. Whatever you think of Allah, it's something else."
First of all — I just mentioned to you — when Allah says: وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ وَكَلَّمَ اللَّهُ مُوسَىٰ تَكْلِيمًا فَلَمَّا جَاءَ مُوسَىٰ لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ
Shāhid — we're talking about verses where Allah says kalam, kalam. These people only understand — by ijmāʿ — that the word kalam only means this.
But to make it even more clear — if they are still stubborn — and again I’m telling you Shāhid — they are not rejecting all of this because the evidence is not clear or they're using another hadith. They don’t believe the Qur’an and Sunnah is evidence. Kalam nafsi actually affirms both — you actually reconcile between the āyah and the kalam of Allah that is affirming. You've done both.
No. Where are they going to take this hadith? Al-Bukhārī, from the hadith of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī: يقول الله... — Allah will say: يَا آدَمُ — Adam will say لَبَّيْكَ وَسَعْدَيْكَ — "I'm here to obey and listen to you." Allah will say فَيُنَادِي — the hadith is saying فَيُنَادِي — Allah will call out بِصَوْتٍ — with a voice.
Allah will call out بِصَوْتٍ — two things they can’t take out of this place. يقول الله — is the beginning of the hadith. فَيُنَادِي بِصَوْتٍ — Qāsim al-Taymiyyah — he says: Nidāʾ, to the Arabs, has no other meaning except with sound.
Also, the Qur’an is حرف — the Prophet ﷺ told us these words. We know the Qur’an is حرف — من قرأ حرفا من كتاب الله فله به حسنة
Now kalam — is by unanimous agreement, according to the people of the Arabic language, and according to the ʿulamāʾ of Islam.
Abū Naṣr al-Sijzī — who died in 444 Hijrī — He said: الكلام لا يكون إلا حرفا وصوتا — speech cannot be except with sound and words. They are تأليف واتساق — composition and sequence.
The Arabs — they say: الكلام اسم وفعل وحرف جاء لمعنى This is what he told him in al-Ājrūmiyyah: كلامنا لفظ مفيد... We studied that in grammar. Al-Fiqh Mālik mentions it. Ājrūmiyyah mentions it: اسم وفعل وحرف جاء لمعنى
That’s what kalam is — kalam is اسم. Who said there is something inside you called ism? I have to hear ism. ʿArf — look what he then says: فالاسم مثل زيد وحمد والفعل مثل جاء وذهب وقام وقعد
Look what he then said: فالإجماع منعقد بين العقلاء — he said: not just the ʿulamāʾ of Islam — the unanimous agreement among sane people is: على كون الكلام حرف وصوت — every sane person will say to you: speech is what’s heard.
If I sat here all day and I looked at you — and I got up — and you said to me: "Why do you not want to talk to me?" "I was talking to you all day!" But you’re saying pointing is not speech?
No, it’s not.
So when Allah says: إِلَّا رَمْزًا — He put it with speech. إِلَّا رَمْزًا — in the āyah that you recited — He put it with speech. He said: You will not speak except with رمزا — with pointing?
No — Allah is saying you will not speak. That’s part of speech?
No, no, no — it’s not. Ramz is ishārah — it’s to point out towards things.
Allah is saying to Zakariyyā: You will not be able to speak. Except — but except Allah will allow you to give ishārah — that means, that is a speech that you’re allowed to… You're not allowed to speak.
It’s like if I say, for example, "You're not allowed to go, but you can eat." No — that’s different.
Exception is taken from — not always. It’s like: Everybody leave the room — except… Not every time. جَاءَ الْقَوْمُ إِلَّا الْحِمَارَ — the Arabs say that — that’s famous. The Arabs say that — it doesn’t have to be the same jins.
But the point is that: The ijmāʿ I just brought. The hadith of the Prophet ﷺ — Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, from the hadith of Abū Hurayrah — where he said: فَيُنَادِي بِصَوْتِهِ
Ahl al-Sunnah — Abū Qāsim al-Taymiyyah — in his Kitāb al-Ḥujjah fī Bayān al-Maḥajjah — he says:
وقد أجمع أهل العربية — the people of the Arabic language all agree upon what? أن ما عدا الحروف والأصوات ليس بكلام حقيقي — that which is not letters and sounds is not real speech.
The Arabs all agree upon the fact that it is not kalam speech.
Now I've mentioned that this is what these people—even Abu Hamid Al-Israeel—has a very powerful statement. It's long. I think the students of knowledge and the brothers should go back to it.
Now that I've mentioned the إجماعة أهل السنة, and I've mentioned the Qur'an and what it said about me, what do Ashʿāʾira believe regarding the Qur'an?
I just said to you that Ashʿāʾira believe the Qur'an is created. Listen to this. First of all, Bayjuri says in his حاشية, or his explanation on جوهرة التوحيد, he says:
"إنه صفة أزلية قائمة بذات الله."
The speech—speech is a characteristic that’s أزلي, and it's always been there, and it's present in Allah تبارك وتعالى, and it's always going to be there.
He said:
"ليس بصوت ولا حرف."
It is not sound or حرف.
Shaykh, I gave you حديث صحيح البقر من حديثه من قريره, where the Prophet said:
"فينادي بصوت."
Also, I just mentioned to you the حديث:
"من قرأ حرفا من كتاب الله..."
حرف and صوت were mentioned by the Messenger عليه الصلاة والسلام. Bayjuri goes against what Nabiullah Muhammad said.
You think this is just again مخالفة of just one حديث? No. They're not evidences to him.
القاضي أبو بكر الباقلاني—look what he said:
"ولا يجوز..."
Baqilani again—the reason I mentioned Bayjuri is because he's from the متأخرين, and Abu Bakr Al-Baqilani is from the متقدمين. Look what he said:
"ولا يجوز أن يطلق على كلامه شيء من أمرات الحدث من حرف ولا صوت."
We cannot refer to the speech of Allah with حرف and صوت.
Ghazali says the same as well in his كتاب الاقتصاد في الاعتقاد. He said:
"صفة أزلية قديمة قائمة بذات الله غير مفصلة عنه، ليست بحرف ولا صوت."
Shahrastani, in his ملل والنحل, he mentions from Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ashʿari that he said:
"وكلامه واحد، هو أمر ونهي وخبر واستخبار، والعبارات والألفاظ المنزلة على لسان الملائكة إلى الأنبياء عليهم الصلاة والسلام دلالات على الكلام الأزلي، ودلالات مخلوقة محدثة، والمدلول قديم أزلي."
Shahid—please listen to this.
Here, Shahrastani mentions that Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ashʿari said "إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون." He said the speech of Allah is one. It's a command, prohibition. It is also خبر, news of Allah تبارك وتعالى and that which Allah is telling us about.
And then after that he said:
"والعبارات والألفاظ المنزلة..."
These wordings that we have in the Muṣḥaf, which was brought to us "على لسان الملائكة" from the tongues of the angels "إلى الأنبياء" to the Prophets عليهم الصلاة والسلام are "دلالات على الكلام الأزلي."
They are an indication of the other كلام of Allah.
And then there is another كلام—there is a كلام which is present in Allah, and there is also the كلام that we have, which is the عبارات and the ألفاظ that we have, that the angels come down with.
He said this one that we have, that the angels come down with:
"والدلالات مخلوقة محدثة."
This one—he is saying Shahrastani is taking the statement of Al-Hasan Al-Ashʿari—that the speech of Allah Taʿala, he categorized it into two.
He said: the speech which is present in Allah Taʿala—that one is not created.
When they say to you: "We affirm Allah's characteristics"—when they say to you "We affirm Allah's characteristics"—sorry, the characteristics of كلام—they are referring to... and it is not created.
When they say that, they are referring to the one that is present within Allah Taʿala, what they call the كلام which is قائمة بذات الله, that is present in Allah Taʿala—that was not مخلوق, which we don't believe in.
It exists—it is not كلام. كلام is what? بحرف وصوت.
So the كلام we refer to is this one. This is what we are talking about.
The Qur'an, when it talks about كلام—of the Qur'an being the كلام of Allah—it is talking about this.
This one that we have—he is saying:
"والدلالات مخلوقة محدثة."
That this one is created—that we have.
"والمدلول قديم أزلي."
The one with Allah Taʿala—that has always been there, and it is not an issue.
Bayjuri said something very shocking in جوهرة التوحيد. When he explains in صحفة المريد, especially جوهرة التوحيد, he says:
"واعلموا أن كلام الله يطلق على الكلام النفسي القديم، بمعنى أنه صفة قائمة بذات الله تعالى، وعلى الكلام اللفظي، بمعنى أنه خلقه..."
"إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون."
He says: know that the speech of Allah is referred to two things. The first one is الكلام النفسي القديم—the speech which is نفسي—that's present within Allah.
The speech that is within Allah—that’s one.
Then he said:
"بمعنى أنه صفة قائمة بذات الله."
That’s present within Allah—that’s one كلام.
Also, كلام is referred to as what?
"وعلى الكلام اللفظي..."
Which is the Qur'an that we have.
"بمعنى أنه خلقه."
That means Allah created this one. They truly say that.
Also, he says:
"ومذهب أهل السنة أن القرآن بمعنى الكلام النفسي ليس بمخلوق، وأما القرآن بمعنى اللفظي الذي نقرأه، فهو مخلوق."
The Qur'an that we read right now is مخلوق. The one that's within Allah is not created.
Here he says something very shocking, which I kept mentioning I'm going to point this out—and I'm going to make sure everyone hears about this one, which is what?
Ashʿarīs are very deceptive people.
There is a madhhab for the people, and there's a madhhab for the students of knowledge that they tell.
He said—he already told us right now that there's two kalām. There's a kalām which is—they call it kalām nafsī—that's within Allah Taʿala.
And there's this one which he called the kalām which is the one we have right now—the Qur'an that we have right now—and he said this one is created, right?
Then he said:
"لكن يمتنع أن يقال القرآن مخلوق."
He said what is prohibited is to say: "القرآن مخلوق"—to say it like that: “The Qur'an is created.” We withhold from that.
"ويراد به اللفظ الذي نقرأه..."
When you really intend the one that's been recited, you shouldn't say it like that—
"إلا في مقام التعليم."
Except when you're educating the students of knowledge. That’s when you bring it out and you tell them that the word is مخلوق.
Why?
"لأنه ربما أوهم أن القرآن بمعنى كلامه تعالى مخلوق."
The person might think that the one within Allah is مخلوق, so to avoid that confusion, don't say it.
شاهد
Busiri—his Burda is one of the books that's read in the Mawlid. They love it. They read it in the Mawlid.
Busiri said something. He said:
"لولا ثبت قدره آيات عظمًا، أحسبه حين يدعى دارس الرمم."
He said—he said:
Allah Taʿala did not give Nabiullah Muhammad—Allah did not give Nabiullah Muhammad that which is worthy of his honour. The Qur'an Allah gave him as a muʿjiza is not worthy of the Prophet’s honour.
If Allah was really to give the Prophet ﷺ something he’s worthy of, it would have been that if his name is mentioned ﷺ, what would happen is:
"حين يدعى دارس الرمم"—
The bones and the people come alive. Everybody would come alive.
If Allah was to really honour Nabiullah Muhammad as he deserves—the honour of the Prophet ﷺ is so high—what Allah gave him is so low.
If Allah really wanted to honour him, He would have made him be a means for people that when his name is mentioned, they all come to life.
So you don’t think I just translated the way I wanted to—Bayjuri does it.
He explains it like that when he explains the Burda. He says the reason for that is because you think to yourself, how can the Qur'an that we have—it's not enough? It's not enough for the Prophet?
And in the poet he said:
"جاء النبيون بالآيات فانصرموا، وجئتَنا بحكيم غير منصرم. آياتٌ كلما طال المدى جُدِّدَت، يبينون جمال العتق والقدم."
Every Prophet came with a miracle for his people to believe in him. Musa came with a stick. ʿIsa came with his miracles. Every Prophet came with a miracle for his people to believe in him.
And Nabiullah Muhammad came with a miracle that didn’t die when he passed away. The miracle still stands. It’s still:
"وَإِن كُنتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا شُهَدَاءَكُم..."
It’s a miracle that stands, right?
So the poet said: You’ve come—Allah has sent unto you, Muhammad, with this everlasting miracle.
This is something Nabiullah Muhammad came with, and it will never come to an end.
But what's the reason why they believe what has been given to the Prophet—this Qur'an—is not worthy of him? What's the reason?
The reason for that is because Nabiullah Muhammad is created, and the Qur'an that we have is created. So if they're both created, the Prophet is the best of creation. But he truly says that. He says: أَنَّ قَدْرَهُ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ آيَاتِهِ — the Prophet is greater than the Ayat of Allah — حَتَّى مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ الْمَتْلُوِّ — even the Qur'an that we recite.
بِخِلَافِ الْقُرْآنِ غَيْرِ الْمَتْلُوِّ — but not the Qur'an that's not recited. Even — there's two Qur'ans. There's a Qur'an that's not recited, and there's a Qur'an which is recited. Where did this come from? That's what they believe. He said that the Qur'an which is matlu — the Qur'an that is recited — Nabiullah Muhammad is better than that: Baqarah, Aal 'Imran — all this we're reading.
As for the Qur'an which is غَيْرُ الْمَتْلُوِّ, then it's better than the Prophet — which is the Qur'an present with Allah. فَإِنَّهُ أَعْظَمُ مِنْهُ لِأَنَّ الْقَدِيمَ أَفْضَلُ مِنَ الْحَادِيثِ وَمَا شَاعَ عَلَى أَلْسِنَتِهِ — that's what he says.
So the أشاعرة — what do they believe? The Qur'an is مخلوق. What is the difference between أشاعرة and المعتزلة? That's what the المعتزلة believe. Why have they got an issue with the معتزلة? The reason why they do is because the أشاعرة have two Qur'ans, and the معتزلة only have one Qur'an. And they refer to that one Qur'an as مخلوق.
The أشاعرة are like, "يا معتزلة, oh معتزلة, when you say the Qur'an is مخلوق, you're referring to also the one that's present with Allah — and you shouldn't have. If you guys just said the one that we have is مخلوق, the one that we have right now in front of us is مخلوق, and you said the one with Allah is not مخلوق, you would have saved yourselves a lot of problems."
And we already proved there's no such thing as كلام that's within you that doesn't come out. It doesn't exist based on evidence that I mentioned.
If you want to look more into this issue — by the way, I could have put more references — go to the كتاب الجويني. He mentions that in more detail. If you want to look more into it, recently there's a scholar who passed away. His name is محمد سعيد رمضان البوطي. There's a كتاب called كبرى اليقينيات الكونية, which is a book where he wants to prove Allah's existence. And he divided the book into four: where he talks about الإلهيات، النبوات، الكونيات، الغيبيات.
He mentions it there — the difference between him and the معتزلة in this issue — because he has to explain it to the people. Also, if you go to the كتاب شرح العقائد النسفية, which is authored by سعد الدين التفتزاني, or الإنصاف by الباقلاني, you'll find them speaking about this issue in great detail — where the difference between them and the معتزلة is. Go there inshallah, طلبة العلم, look at these people, what they believe.
The أشاعرة today are جهمية. They're جهمية. They are not أشاعرة like the early أشاعرة that were at the time of مذهب الحسن الأشعري — where he believed. No. The أشاعرة today are جهمية, محب.
It's a podcast, of course. It's not a series where I'm speaking about it in great detail. I can bring you so much more.
Okay, I want to bring it back to a foundational level now, for the layman Muslim who's watching. What is the issue with saying the Qur'an is created? What is the issue with that? Saying the Qur'an is created is saying Allah's characteristics are created — سبحانه وتعالى. Allah's characteristic — speech — صفة من صفات الله — can't be created. How can it be created? Allah is not created — سبحانه وتعالى.
It's dangerous. Like great scholars of Islam — what did they say?
من قال: anyone who says the Qur'an is مخلوق — هو كافر.
If you want to see more statements like that, go to the كتاب خلق أفعال العباد — Imam al-Bukhari. Imam al-Bukhari divided that book into two.
The first part, he speaks about Imam al-Bukhari — the statement of the Jahmiyyah — where they say the Qur'an is مخلوق. He refutes them — Imam al-Bukhari — and he proves that that statement is كفر بالله العلي العظيم.
Then the second part, he speaks about the issue of the actions of the creation being created — he goes and speaks about that.
شاهد — we have to understand — the most important reason why we are in this world today — Allah brought us into this world — is to know Tawheed. It's the purpose we are here.
These things that we are talking about — it's our reason of existence. Allah تبارك وتعالى: وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَسُولًا أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ — all of the prophets that were sent to their nations, and every prophet that was sent to these people, he was told to say to them: اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ — and stay away from associating partners with Allah.
Allah تبارك وتعالى also told us that Nuh عليه السلام — when he came to his people — Allah says: وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ فَقَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُم مِّنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرُهُ — he said to them: مَا لَكُم مِّنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرُهُ — you have no other Ilah other than Allah عز وجل — don't worship him [i.e., anyone else].
Allah also told us: 'Aad — when he went to his people — he said the same thing: وَإِلَىٰ عَادٍ أَخَاهُمْ هُودًا ۗ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُم مِّنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرُهُ — same thing.
Shu‘ayb, Salih, Musa, ‘Isa — all said to their people: وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا نُوحِي إِلَيْهِ...
That’s our reason in this world.
The Prophet ﷺ said — because of this, he said: أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ — I was commanded to fight the people — حَتَّىٰ يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ Until they bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is His messenger, and they establish the prayer and give the zakat.
فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَٰلِكَ عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّ الْإِسْلَامِ وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ تَعَالَى
If they do that, their blood is protected from me, and their wealth — except with the due right of Islam. And their reckoning is with Allah ﷻ.
Their wealth is secreted from me, and their accountability is with Allah يوم القيامة. When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said—he said to Mu'adh: "When you come to these people فَلْيَكُنْ أَوَّلَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَيْهِ شَهَادَةُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ—let the first thing you call them to be what? لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ." If they obey that from you, then Salah. وَهَكَذَا.
One day the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم came to the noble Sahabi Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Imam Muslim narrated this. Ubayy is a Qari, a reciter of the Qur'an. The Prophet said to him one day, يَا أَبَا الْمُنذِرِ—that is his Kunya. He said, أَتَدْرِي أَيُّ آيَةٍ مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مَعَكَ أَعْظَمُ؟ "Do you know what verse in the Book of Allah تبارك وتعالى with you is the greatest?"
He said, قُلْتُ: اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَعْلَمُ—Allah and His Messenger know best. He said again, يَا أَبَا الْمُنذِرِ، أَتَدْرِي أَيُّ آيَةٍ مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مَعَكَ أَعْظَمُ؟—the Prophet repeated this again. He said, “Do you know the greatest verse that you have in the Qur’an?”
That’s great.
He then said—Ubayy replied: اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ—Ayat al-Kursi.
فَضَرَبَ فِي صَدْرِي—Ubayy ibn Ka'b said, “The Prophet struck my chest and said: وَاللَّهِ لِيَهْنِكَ الْعِلْمُ، أَبَا الْمُنذِرِ—By Allah, may knowledge be made pleasant for you, O Abu al-Mundhir.”
Shaheed, we have to understand: this Ayah talks about Allah’s characteristics. More than ten parts in that verse go back to ضمائر—pronouns that refer back to Allah.
We were commanded to know Allah's names and attributes. Allah says in the Qur’an: وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ—Know that Allah hears and that He has knowledge. Allah also says: وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي أَنفُسِكُمْ فَاحْذَرُوهُ، وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ. وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ، وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ. فَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ.
We've been told multiple times: know that Allah can hear all things, know that Allah is with the pious people. Know that Allah is عزيز—whatever He wants will happen the way He wants it. حكيم—He is Wise. وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ حَلِيمٌ—that Allah is forgiving, and that He is حليم.
These are characteristics of Allah. Rather, Allah Ta'ala told us in the Qur’an the reason why He brought us into this world. He says: اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ وَمِنَ الْأَرْضِ مِثْلَهُنَّ، يَتَنَزَّلُ الْأَمْرُ بَيْنَهُنَّ، لِتَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ، وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ أَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا.
Allah is saying: I created seven heavens, I created seven earths, and everything that’s within it. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala is saying: لِتَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ، وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ أَحَاطَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا. The reason why I did all of that, and I created all of those things, is so you have knowledge of Allah’s names and attributes.
Allah also says: جَعَلَ اللَّهُ الْكَعْبَةَ الْبَيْتَ الْحَرَامَ قِيَامًا لِلنَّاسِ، وَالشَّهْرَ الْحَرَامَ، وَالْهَدْيَ، وَالْقَلَائِدَ، ذَٰلِكَ لِتَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ، وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ.
So you know that Allah knows everything that’s in the seven heavens, Allah knows everything that’s in the seven earths. وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ—And that Allah has encompassed everything with knowledge.
Shaahid, He's saying: I created you for this reason. I brought you into this world for this reason. The one thing—I mean, the thing that Allah brought us into this world for, which is to have knowledge of Him and to worship Him alone, which are the two things:
وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ—those are the two things Allah mentioned in the Qur’an that He created us for.
الأشاعرة—I haven’t even spoken about their concept of عبادة, and the shirk that they’ve fallen into. The major shirk that they dwell in—I haven’t even gone into that. Volumes have been written on these people and their corrupted belief and their ideology. It shocks me that someone would still attribute themselves to this group.
Maybe it’s because they don’t know the group. Maybe they haven’t heard these things. Because I did say to you: what they teach to the people, and what they teach in مَقَامِ التَّعَالِيم, is different. They teach something different in the circles of knowledge, and what they teach لعامة الناس is different.
So if you call yourself an أشعري today, let it be the last day you refer to yourself as أشعري. Say: "I am free from this group." Repent to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, ask Allah for forgiveness, and rectify your situation. That’s what I can say. والله.
We’ve just spent approximately an hour and a half talking about these very complex theological aspects and issues—when, to be honest with you, most of the people and most of the Muslims that are living in the world today, it goes over their heads.
They don't really understand this—whether they're Ashʿarī or whether they're not Ashʿarī—they don't really fully understand this for many reasons. Like you said, maybe they're not taught it. Why do you feel that it's so important to press on these issues, which probably were the number one controversy 600, 700 years ago at the time of Ibn Taymiyyah? And the reason why he wrote his books on ʿAqīdah based on these issues is because these were the issues that the people at the time were talking about.
Now we have issues like feminism, atheism, secularism, evolution. If Ibn Taymiyyah was living in the 21st century, do you really think he'd be talking about the complex aspects of kalām Allāh, or would he actually be talking about feminism, atheism, evolution?
If the Ashʿarī don't know these issues, they shouldn't attribute themselves to an ideology they don't really know its reality. You shouldn't call yourself an Ashʿarī if you don't know what the Ashʿarī believe.
Now that, al-ḥamdu lillāh, I'm hoping a lot of them have now come to know about it—free yourself from this group. Say: I've got nothing to do with it. I don't want to study it. I'm not an Ashʿarī. Distance yourself from them. They are a corrupt group. That's point number one.
Point number two—and it's very important that you understand this point—Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, مع جلالته و مكانته, we love him, we admire him, we know he defended this religion with his blood and sweat, رحمه الله تعالى. He did. And with his pen. But Ibn Taymiyyah is not an evidence, and he's not a proof in and within himself.
I'm saying that because a lot of these people believe that we believe Ibn Taymiyyah is the ultimate evidence for us. We don't believe that. Ibn Taymiyyah يصيب و يخطئ—he can get it right and get it wrong. And if he gets it right, we'll take it from him. If he gets it wrong, we will dismiss it and not take it from him. That's, first of all, something I want you to understand.
So just because Ibn Taymiyyah did something, it doesn't necessarily mean that's the case. But with that being said, what Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah proved—and I also tried my best to point it out in this podcast—is that the arguments against liberalism, the arguments against feminism, all these -isms that we're hearing today, come back to: is the Qur'an and the Sunnah a source of legislation?
Which, nearly a thousand years ago, was the battle where it started from—a group of people who did not go back to the Qur'an and the Sunnah as a proof. The masʾalah here, the shāhid, and the argument here has always been this. And I've said this to you before: it is a masʾalah that they've passed one onto the other.
Let me read a statement to you that al-Imām al-Samʿānī said—Abū Muẓaffar al-Samʿānī, who died in 489. He said it then. He said it in Kitāb al-Intiṣār li-Aṣḥāb al-Ḥadīth—Abū Muẓaffar al-Samʿānī. Al-Imām al-Dhahabī mentioned it from him in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ. He said:
الإمام العلامة مفتي خراسان شيخ الشافعية
He said:
وَاعْلَمْ نَوْا أَنَّ فَصْلَ مَا بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَ الْمُبْتَدِعَةِ هو مسألة الحق
The dispute, the argumentation, the issue between us and the innovators is the issue of logic and rationality.
فَإِنَّهُمْ أَسَّسُوا دِينَهُمْ عَلَى الْمَعْقُولِ
They based their religion on logic.
وَجَعَلُوا الْإِتِّبَاعَ وَالْمَأْثُورَ بَعْدَ الْمَعْقُولِ
And they made the Qur'an and the Sunnah follow their logic.
وَأَمَّا أَهْلُ السُّنَّةِ
The people of the Sunnah
قَالُوا الْأَصْلُ الْإِتِّبَاعُ وَالْعُقُولُ تَبَعٌ
They said: the aṣl is to follow, and logic follows (i.e., it is subordinate).
وَلَوْ كَانَ أَسَاسُ الدِّينِ عَلَى الْمَعْقُولِ
If the religion was based on rationality and only using your mind,
لَاسْتَغْنَى الْخَلْقُ عَنِ الْوَحْيِ وَعَنِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ
Then the people would not need revelation or the prophets.
وَلَبَطَلَ مَعَنَا الْأَمْرُ وَالنَّهْيُ
And the commands and prohibitions coming to us from Allah and His Messenger would have no weight.
وَلَقَالَ مَنْ شَاءَ مَا شَاءَ
And everyone would say whatever they wanted.
If you look at that one statement—all of the groups, that's what we have. You come to a feminist, hardcore—whether she's a progressive feminist or conservative feminist, whatever she calls herself—the issue is:
الإدعان والخضوع لنصوص الوحيين — Submission to the Qur'an and Sunnah.
What are you looking for, sister? Ḥurriyyah? Freedom? The ḥurriyyah should be restricted. It should be narrowed down by Allah and His Messenger.
“No, no, no. I have to look for it in this organization…”
The battle is masʾalat al-ḥaqq, masʾalat al-hawā. Dhūq: “I feel this,” “I like this,” “I enjoy this.” It goes: politics being put before the Qur'an and Sunnah; what you feel—put it before the Qur'an and Sunnah; ʿaql before the Qur'an and Sunnah. This has been the battle, and it seems to still be the battle.
We've been saying from then until now—say Āmīn:
الأديب قال الله قال رسوله قال الصحابة هم أولو العرفان ما العلم نصبك للخلاف سفاهة بين الرسول وبين رأي فلان
Our religion is to say: Qāla Allāh, qāla al-rasūl — Allah said, His Messenger said, and the Companions said. That’s what our religion has been. We don’t mention anything from ourselves. We know our statement has no value, no meaning. It has nothing.
Ok, let me turn your argument back onto yourself then.
If you are saying—and you're sitting here claiming—that the Shia do not even put the Qur'an and Sunnah at the forefront, they put the ʿaql over it, they reject the Qur'an and Sunnah openly—then if they reject the masādir al-taqlī, why don’t you make takfīr of them bilā iqāmat al-ḥujjah—without establishing the proof?
They rejected the nuṣūṣ al-waḥyayn. Why do you still say they’re Muslims? They’re misguided Muslims—why don’t you make takfīr of them?
Because again, that’s another thing: qaḍiyyat al-takfīr. It needs us to have another podcast on it—what makes a person takfīr, how to, shurūṭ al-takfīr, specific tafsīr, specific takfīr.
I think we’ve kind of touched on it briefly. That’s another issue.
لكن الأشاعرة, and the group that they are today—and the Ashʿarāʾ, they went through their stages. I told you before: Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī—what he believed is not necessarily what Abū Maʿālī believed, and not what Abū Ḥāmid believed, and not what [others] believed. Because many people don’t know the Ashʿarī. They don’t know it. Haven’t studied it.
They claim to be part of this group I know. Inshallah, many people, after hearing this—who are passionate about the religion, who might attribute themselves to أشعرية—after watching this, Inshallah, a lot of them are sincere. I know a lot of them are sincere. When they watch this, there will be a صدمة. They'll be shocked and they'll be taken back, and they will, بإذن الله الكريم, change their ways.
Do you think you tend to overcomplicate عقيدة? For example, when منكر and نكير are asking the people in the grave, "ما ربك?", the أشعري will say, "الله", and the أثري will say, "الله". What's the issue? الله is not going to ask you what is the meaning of استواء, what is the meaning of يد, what is the Qur'an created. He's not going to ask you these things. Do you think you tend to overcomplicate عقيدة?
The scholars already mentioned this before. العلم before, knowledge used to be a نقطة—it was a dot. كثرة الجهل, the ignorant people made this so many dots. What I mean by that is that أهل السنة did not bring these technicalities, and they were not the ones who brought these arguments like that. They were just saying, قال الله. Read in the best of آيات الصفات. Fine.
أبو بكر, عمر—groups popped up and they said, like what happened in the حديث of جبريل, where the قدرية came out. And معبد الجهني, for example, said there's no قدر. And that wasn’t there before—no one ever said that before. And then معبد الجهني just said it like that. But then غيلان الدمشقي, he took it from him and he played around with it more, you know. And he thought about this issue and then brought arguments forward. And then أهل السنة responded. And then speech became more because of that.
And every time they said something, أهل السنة would respond, and they would respond. لكن أهل السنة were never the ones to bring the points forward. They’ll stick to the Qur’an, they’ll leave it at the bare minimum. And whenever they speak more, they add on more to clarify this and more to clarify this.
Is that my point? As they add on more and more, are they not developing the عقيدة to a level that the companions didn’t understand it—because there was no need to understand it? For example, the قدر, like you brought up. We now say that there are four pillars of the قدر: the knowledge, the writing, the will, the creation. The companions didn’t understand it like this.
No, but that’s my point. But it doesn’t mean the concept of the sahabas would be wrong. Like when they look at it—sahabas would agree that Allah تبارك وتعالى—for example the قدر—Allah’s knowledge, that Allah knows everything.
وَعِندَهُ مَفَاتِحُ الْغَيْبِ لَا يَعْلَمُهَا إِلَّا هُوَ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ وَمَا تَسْقُطُ مِنْ وَرَقَةٍ إِلَّا يَعْلَمُهَا وَلَا حَبَّةٍ فِي ظُلُمَاتِ الْأَرْضِ وَلَا رَطْبٍ وَلَا يَابِسٍ إِلَّا فِي كِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ
They know that—knowledge, okay good. Everything’s written. Oh yeah.
They, the sahabas, had the Qur’an innately built in them.
لَسْتُ مِنْ أَحْوِيٍّ يَلُوكُ لِسَانَهُ وَلَكِنِّي سَلِيقِيٌّ أَقُولُ فَأُعْرِبُ
As the poet said: I’m not a grammarian, I’m an Arab, okay? I don’t need to say: محمدٌ مجتهدٌ I don’t have to say: مبتدأ محمدٌ مبتدأ مرفوع، وعلامة رفعه ضمة ظاهرة على آخره، هي مجتهدٌ، خبر مرفوع.
He doesn’t need to say that. I’m a grammarian؟ لا. لَسْتُ مِنْ أَحْوِيٍّ يَلُوكُ لِسَانَهُ I don’t need to look for the… I say it and it’s grammatically correct.
Also:
وَأَوَّلُ مَنْ أَلَّفَ فِي الْكُتْبِ مُحَمَّدٍ بْنُ الشَّافِعِيِّ الْمُطَّلِبِيِّ وَغَيْرُهُ كَانَ لَهُ سَرِيقَةً مِثْلُ الَّذِي لُعْلُورْ بِهِ لِمَنْ خَرِيقَةً
أصول الفقه: عام، خاص، مطلق، مقيد، مجمل، مبين—the sahabahs don’t need that. They innately know that. They know it. They used it without giving it those names. They were saying it without giving those titles to it.
So the عقيدة of أهل السنة only explained it further because of the people’s knowledge, of course, decreasing, and also because of the innovators becoming large in number. It doesn’t mean like they introduced new concepts. That’s what the issue is—they didn’t. They expanded on what it meant.
There’s a كتاب that Ibn Rajab wrote, where he talks about the knowledge of the early scholars—يعني صحابة رسول الله—how they spoke very little. And now when we get that, we have to unpackage it for so much. Why is it going to take us 2–3 volumes?
And the Ashʿari who says that, for example, the companions didn’t need [it] because they understood it easily. But the Muʿtazila came and they put another dot in. Therefore we had to come with [a response] to refute them.
It’s something that’s taken from the philosophers. It’s taken from Aristotle. It’s taken from Plato. This is the people we’ve taken it from. And that’s where we’re going to build our fundamental عقيدة on?
This is important—it’s taken from… Where did he take it from?
يعني, when we study the مبادئ of every subject, scholars they say: مبادئ كل فن عشر: الحد والموضوع ثم الثمرة، ونسبة، والواضع، وحكم الاستمداد، وحكم الشارع، مسائل، والمسائل للبعض اكتفى، ومن دار الجميع حاز الشرفا
Where is the science taken from? You study in what is known as the مبادئ of every science. علم الكلام—that is taken from Greek logicians. People who are atheists or people who are non-Muslims. That’s where these people take their religion from.
For example:
الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى
Which I think we should make a podcast for—صفات الله. We speak about it. We really break down the concept of تأويل and تفويض and all these arguments that they bring forward.
لكن, when you come to:
الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى
You have two great Imams of Islam. You have, first of all, Ibn Abbas’s تفسير on this issue. You’ve got Mujahid’s تفسير on this issue. You’ve got Abu Ali’s تفسير on this issue—which Bukhari chose. Both Mujahid and Abu Ali’s قول—he put them together in his تفسير.
Okay:
الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى علا وارتفع — Mujahid سُدِّي — Mujahid zamanahu
Sufyan al-Thawri said: إذا جاءك تفسير مجاهد فحسبك به
We have Abu Ali who says also a comment on this. They abandoned that. They leave Mujahid. They leave Abu Ali. They leave the تفسير of these great Imams. And who do they go to? They go to a man who’s not a Muslim—غياث بن غيوث الصلت—who said:
استوى بشر على العراق من غير سيف ولا دم مهراقي
He says استوى بشر على العراق—Bishr took over Iraq من غير سيف ولا دم مهراقي—and no blood was spilled. So they said استوى—he means استولى.
Where did you get it from? غياث بن غيوث الصلت. Who is this guy? He’s a guy who doesn’t believe in Allah. But the point is that he said it. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah refuted that.
We’ve got Imams. Jahiliyyah poetry, for example, at the time—it is a proof. First of all, he was not one of the people’s language. Second is that no one’s ever said على العرش استوى in the context of استوى. No Arab—any Arab—
If we get a session for it, I’ll bring Abu ʿAmr al-Talmaki—by unanimous agreement, all unanimously agree that Allah is above His throne. They’re going to leave the إجماع, they’re going to leave the آية, they’re going to twist it, break it, push it, ignore it.
I really want people to understand—it’s not just there’s a تفسير problem here, and there’s an odd disagreement here, and it’s just generally they like the Qur’an, generally they love the Ahadith—let’s really call out the situation as it is and not sugarcoat it.
Anyone who tasted the sweetness of knowledge—even if he didn’t taste it, but he smelled it from far—he will know. The أشاعرة today are جهمية.
لكن, when you don’t know and you don’t have understanding, whenever somebody says these statements like I’m saying right now, you start to hate that person.
As the poet said:
If you have an ignorance of something, you show animosity to the people who show you the truth. You don’t like them. You call them names. You belittle them.
The Deobandiyya community in the UK, for example, who adopt these ideologies—a lot of them, I’ve sat with. I’ve sat with a lot of these people. I said: “Do you believe in these issues? Do you believe in these books? Do you believe in it?” “Yes, I do.” “Do you believe in Sanusi’s كتب? Do you believe in this?”
These are the things that are written. Wallahi, billahi, tallahi—all these books I’m telling you—Wallahi, I never read it from other references. I started and I finished it just for this podcast. Just for this podcast—and I read it before. Shahid. Wallahi, billahi, tallahi—the majority of them, I agree, they don’t know it.
Why are you attributing yourself to a group you don’t know? You don’t even understand it. And then when you get caught out and I tell you: this is what your group says and they believe—if you then start defending it, there’s something wrong with you.
I genuinely was excused at the beginning. You didn't know. Now you know — why are you still arguing for it? Why are you debating for it? Are you with me? So that's the problem, wallahi.
So to take you back to the layman on the street — aside from the people that you know — you're speaking to the people of knowledge. The layman on the street, if for example, he is upon the fitrah in terms of names and attributes of Allah, he believes Allah has mercy, he doesn't really go further than that. He doesn't ask about the speech of Allah too much. But he attributes himself to the Ash'ari madhhab. If he knows what the Ash'ari are and what they believe, he's in trouble. He's in trouble. If he doesn't know, then why is he attributing himself to a group he doesn't know?
It's like me saying I'm a Jew, but you know, I only worship Allah and I gave... How are you going to attribute yourself to a group? By the way, I'm not saying that Ash'aris are Jews. What I'm saying is that attributing yourself to a group — you have to know their beliefs.
I want to say something to you. They say all these issues are very trivial issues, why are you wasting your time on it? They say that, right?
Yeah, of course, yeah.
Why do they not say the same thing about ISIS and those people? You have Khawarij tendencies. Khawarij was actually the first group that ever came out.
Masā'ilul Īmān was a discussion.
I think what they claim is that these issues are historical controversies in the past — they're dead and buried. Why do you have to resurrect it? We agree that most of the Shia don't know these things. Why do you have to teach them this? Just to raise a controversy and then refute them? Just leave them.
I believe the majority of those people who say it — they are halal. They have double standards. They have double standards. They have one scale for themselves and other scales for other people. When they say that, they only are talking to the Salafis and they're saying to the Salafis: put your weapons down — because we're fighting, jihad, jihad, jihad. So they say: put the weapons down, stop, calm down. And they go to the Shia and they say: spread what you want to spread. Majority of the Salafis are doing that. Salafis — why is he going to leave it?
One of the things that was mentioned — one of the things that was mentioned is Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, who was from the Shia. Abu Hamid al-Isfarayini — they lived in the same place. He used to wear niqab. I want you to understand — Abu Bakr al-Baqillani was very smart, clever. If you look at his debates with the Christians and everything, Abu Hamid al-Isfarayini — he made him wear niqab. When he went to call of nature, he would hide from Abu Hamid al-Isfarayini because he called him out. He shamed him. He literally exposed his ideology. He didn't personally attack him, but he exposed his ideology. He was hiding.
So Salafis should be like that. They should never stop putting pressure on them.
The second thing: they themselves are hunting down the Salafis. They go, they open the works of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, and they bring it out. If they brought something out, we would be the first people to condemn Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab.
What about the man in the middle who says: you should stop going at the Salafis, and the Salafis should stop going at the... put your weapons down?
We are happy. We say — we say in the open to everyone who is listening: anything, go look into our books. We are happy. Go into our books without lying, without deception. Go to the ulema that we consider to be scholars and bring out half of what I mentioned today in this podcast.
Don't bring me what was made up — that was made against Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Battuta, for example, lied about Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah — in issues that he claimed Ibn Taymiyyah said, when he never even met Ibn Taymiyyah.
So don't bring me what is made up and forged against the scholars of Islam. Bring me something in their works. I'm mentioning from works — they admit it's their works.
But do you think this issue — this complex theological issue — is even worth talking about?
As long as one person believes in it — no.
For Allah to guide one person at your hand is better than you...
As long as there is one person on the face of this earth who believes in the ideology, I don't think anyone should stop talking about them. They should be exposed. They should be spoken about. They should be called out.
Not to mention — in the UK, we have the biggest organizations, biggest masājid. How is someone going to be silent about that?
We've got Dewsbury — where they teach these ideologies to the people. We have that. We have it in the UK — colleges here and there that they teach in.
Can I just mention the names of great scholars of Islam who considered the Asha'ira to be from Ahlul Bid'ah?
The first one is Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Some of you might say: "But Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari? How?" Ahmad ibn Hanbal made tabdi' of the Kullabiyyah, and he was very harsh on the Kullabiyyah. And the Ashā'irah al-Awā'il — the early Ashā'irah — are what Abul Hasan himself directly benefited from: Ibn Kullab. He benefited from him.
And that's why Ahmad ibn Hanbal — as was mentioned by Imam Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaimah — he mentions that Abu al-ʿAlī said, "What did you deny, O teacher, from our sect?" He said: “Turn to the Kullabiyyah.”
Ahmad ibn Hanbal was harsh on ʿAbdullah ibn Saʿīd ibn Kullab, and on Ashāʿirī like Al-Ḥārith and others. Ahmad was very harsh on Al-Ḥārith al-Muḥāsibī — but what did he say? He commanded the people to boycott him, and he warned the people from him, and he said to them: stay away from him.
The Kullabiyyah is the ʿAqīdah the Ashāʿirah took on. Ashāʿirah just became famous for it.
Imam Abu Naṣr al-Sijzī, who I mentioned before — that he has been praised — he spoke against the Ashāʿirah in his Kitāb: Al-Radd ʿalā man ankara al-Ḥarf wa al-Ṣawt, page 101. Go there and look at it. He mentions that about the Ashāʿirah: they are misguided people.
Al-Imam Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Khuwayz al-Miṣrī al-Mālikī — Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr mentions this in his Kitāb: Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm wa Faḍlih — and I'm going to read this statement, it's very powerful. He said in his Kitāb al-Shahādāt, Al-Imām Mālik said:
"The testimony and the witnessing of the people of innovation is not accepted."
Now al-Imām Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Khuwayz al-Miṣrī, he wants to explain — who are these people Mālik is talking about?
He said:
"The people of innovation to Mālik ibn Anas — wa sāʾira aṣḥābinā min al-Mālikiyyah..."
Which is another refutation of those who claim that the majority of the people are what? Ashāʿirah. He's saying — Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr transmitted this in his Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm wa Faḍlih — he’s saying us and the Mālikiyyah.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr is a Mālikī — one of the greatest explainers of the Kitāb. Who? Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr.
No — he was — he’s quoting — look — the statement — he’s bringing the statement of another Imām of the Mālikī madhhab.
Pay attention here. He’s saying: the statement of al-Imām Mālik where he said the testimony of the people of innovation is not accepted — he’s saying:
Ibn Khuwayz, he’s saying: al-Mālikī, al-Imām Mālik — the people of innovation us Mālikiyyah — is the people of al-Kalām. Every person of Kalām is from the people of innovation — Ashʿarī or whether he’s not Ashʿarī — his testimony should never be accepted. He should be boycotted. He should be disciplined. If he’s stubborn and he's still hard-headed on that issue, he’s requested to repent from this.
Shāhid, look at this point he’s saying here: That we Mālikiyyah, this is what we believe — the Mālikī statement is referring to them. That’s what he’s saying.
Ibn Qudāmah, in his book — page 35 — Shāhid, this is very shocking. He said:
"We don’t know in the people of innovation a group who hide their statements, who conceal their views, who don’t come out in the public, who don’t come out in the open to tell the people about it — except the Ashʿarī."
The heretics and the Ashāʿirah — the Ashāʿirah are the people who hide their statements from you. Ibn Qudāmah is saying this.
Also he said — in the book — he said (again they claim they are the most in number), Ibn Qudāmah is saying that Aḥmad ibn Isḥāq al-Mālikī said:
"People of innovation — according to us al-Mālikī (again, sorry) — is the people of Kalām. Every single person who is from Ahlul Kalām is what? Min Ahlul Ahwāʾ wal-Bidaʿ. Whether he's an Ashʿarī or whether he's not — his testimony should never be accepted. He should be boycotted the same. He should be disciplined for his innovation. And if he's stubborn and hard-headed, he's told to repent from that."
The fifth person: Abu Ḥāmid al-Isfarāʾīnī. Who is Abu Ḥāmid al-Isfarāʾīnī?
He's considered to be from Ashābul Wujūh — his khilāf is muʿtabar. Abu Ḥāmid al-Isfarāʾīnī was very harsh with Bāqillānī and those who were with him. And he really gave them a hard time that it was mentioned:
Abu Ḥāmid al-Isfarāʾīnī was so harsh on Abu Bakr al-Bāqillānī, that he would go out with a niqāb — khawfan min al-Shaykh Abī Ḥāmid al-Isfarāʾīnī. All of this because he was scared of who? Abu Ḥāmid al-Isfarāʾīnī.
Also, Abū Ismāʿīl — last one, then I'm going to have to stop. There are sixteen, but I'll stop there.
Abū Ismāʿīl ʿAbdullāh ibn Muḥammad al-Anṣārī, he mentions in his Kitāb — Subkī mentions this by the way, Subkī, who they look up to — that he said, when he spoke about it:
"He used to curse Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī."
He used to curse Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī.
And Abū Ismāʿīl al-Harawī left off narrating from his teacher al-Qāḍī Abī Bakr al-Ḥayrī, because he was an Ashʿarī.
There’s a story — Ibn Qudāmah and Abū ʿAmr, both of whom used to study with a man by the name of al-Qāḍī Ibn ʿAshrūn.
Al-Qāḍī Ibn ʿAshrūn was the Qāḍī al-Quḍāt for Nūruddīn Muḥammad Zankī. He was his Qāḍī al-Quḍāt.
So what happened? Ibn Qudāmah and Abū ʿAmr — both of them — who are brothers, who are the children of al-Qudāmah al-Maqdisī, both of them used to study with him.
And so, news reached them that this man that they study with — Qāḍī Ibn ʿAshrūn — is an Ashʿarī. So they left him.
So he told them — one day he saw Abū ʿAmr, and he said to him:
"I heard — why did you stop coming to my classes?" He said: "Because I heard that you are an Ashʿarī. I heard that you are an Ashʿarī." And then he said: "Wallāhi, I am not an Ashʿarī. But Wallāhi, if you stay with me for one year, and you seek knowledge of fiqh from me, Wallāhi you are going to be a scholar in fiqh."
And he sought knowledge of fiqh from him.
My point, shāhid, to you is that — wallāhi, I'm just going to mention the names — I'm not going to quote them:
- Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad al-Karjī — he considered them to be from Ahlul Bid'ah.
- Al-Qāḥṭānī in his Nūniyyah, he says:
"Yā Ashāʿiratu yā asāfilata al-wara Yā umyūn yasūmūna bilā adhāni Innī la umqiḍukum wa umqiḍu ḥizbakum Buġḍan aqallu qalīlihi adġhānī Law kuntu aʿmal muqālatayni la sarra-nī Kay lā yarā insānakum insānī."
- Ibn Taymiyyah, raḥimahu Allāh, who is the 9th Imam — he considered them to be from the innovators, from Ahlul Bid'ah.
- Also al-Imām Ibn al-Qayyim, raḥimahu Allāh.
- Aʾimmat al-Daʿwah al-Najdiyyah, like Sulaymān ibn Saḥmān — 11.
- Also Abu Butayn — Aʾimmat al-Daʿwah al-Najdiyyah — 12.
- Number 13 is Shaykh Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī, raḥimahu Allāh, who considered them to be from Ahlul Bid'ah.
- Also al-Imām al-Faqīh Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn, who considered them to be from Ahlul Bid'ah.
- Number 15 is Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān, who, when he was asked: Are the Ashāʿirah an-nās min ahl al-sunnah? — And he said:
"Lā yuʿaddūna min ahl al-sunnah — we should not consider them to be from the people of the Sunnah." "They are the ones who call themselves Ahl al-Sunnah — they are not from Ahl al-Sunnah."
I think it has been very comprehensive.
The quotes that you brought from the ‘Ulama towards the end — I think someone could quite easily say that these are scholars on your side, we have scholars on our side. But the most impressive thing, I think, was the quotes you brought from their scholars, which was the main part of the podcast I want to talk about. I think you comprehensively proved that the Asha'ira of today are not from Ahlul Sunnah.
But I want to take it back to the origin of this — the last segment of this podcast. I want to rewind the clock and take it back to when these deviations first started taking place in ‘Aqeedah. And you're talking about the time of Ibn Kullab. Like you said, he took it from Ibn Kullab, al-Muhasibi. You're talking about the 3rd century after Hijrah, the same time as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. These kinds of deviations — they started from then. And these are Sunni Islam as well — they both attribute themselves to Sunni Islam. These deviations that occurred here, why can't we just say that these were the early generations — the generation of Islam which were the most virtuous, the most knowledgeable, the most pious — why can't we say that the differences that took place between them, we don’t make any count of either one of them? Because it happened at the time of the quote-on-quote Salaf.
Shaheed, the names and the attributes of Allah, for example, is what you're referring to. Ahmad ibn Hanbal and all these Imams — the issue they had was this: I want you to understand something. It really does go before Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The issue really goes back to Jahm ibn Safwan. Before him was Ja'd ibn Dirham. Ja'd ibn Dirham — he took from Aban ibn Sam'an. Aban ibn Sam'an took from Talut, and Talut took from Labid ibn al-A'sam — the man who did magic on the Prophet. Labid ibn al-A'sam is the man. All of this goes back to Labid ibn al-A'sam — gave it to Talut, Talut gave it to Aban ibn Sam'an, Aban ibn Sam'an gave it to Ja'd ibn Dirham, Ja'd ibn Dirham gave it to who? Jahm ibn Safwan. And that's how it trickled into the Mutakallimeen that we see. When we say Mutakallimeen, we mean three: Asha'ira and Mu'tazila. Asha'ira — they got it from that at the beginning.
You have to understand — the Jahmiyyah went under excessive heat, so everybody was trying to avoid being connected to the Jahmiyyah. The Jahmiyyah were not as educated and as scholastic as the Mu'tazila were. The Mu'tazila were learned, they were studied, they were grounded in knowledge — especially the Arabic language and other sciences. So Wasil ibn 'Ata, 'Amr ibn 'Ubayd and the likes of these people. And then Bishr ibn al-Mu’risi came. And then they took power, Shaheed — they took power. At the time of Imam Ahmad, which Ma’mun was being forced into by Qadir Qudat Ibn Abu Du’ad — made this whole issue become a test, testing on the people.
The point is that I’m trying to say to you — Ahmad ibn Hanbal was still consistent upon the Prophet’s way, and Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali. Anyone who's still on that path — he’s not the one who's cutting away from the Jama'ah. He's not the one who's creating something. Ahmad's sanad goes back to who? It goes to Shafi’i, to Malik, to Nafi’, to Ibn ‘Umar, to Rasulullah. That’s the sanad of Imam Ahmad. Ahmad took from Shafi’i, Shafi’i took from who? Imam Malik. Malik took from who? Nafi’. Nafi’ took from who? Ibn ‘Umar. Ibn ‘Umar took from who? The Messenger ﷺ. That’s the chain of Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Bishr ibn al-Mu’risi and these guys — their sanad is dajjajilah. Do you understand my point? So Ahmad’s consistent upon that path. And till today, the people are like this. I ask Allah — I ask Allah — that Allah makes us from these people who are consistent upon that path. They’re not the problem, they’re just trying to keep it clean, pure, untainted.
By saying to the people that there is more than one Ahlul Sunnah — istakhdeel! — the Prophet can’t count? The Prophet said: "Sataftariqu ummati ‘ala thalāthin wa sab‘īn firqah, kulluhā fi al-nār illā wāḥidah." I’m not saying there’s more than one Ahlul Sunnah, I’m saying Ahlul Sunnah itself — there are differences within Ahlul Sunnah. No! Look what the Prophet said. The Prophet said there are 73 groups in my Ummah, right? 72 of them are going to be in the Hellfire and one group is going to be— Then the Prophet described that one group, he gave a description to that one group. What was the description he gave?
"Man kāna ‘alā mithli mā ana ‘alayhi al-yawm wa aṣḥābī." "Anyone who is upon that which I and my companions are upon today."
After this whole podcast of what I was proving — are the Ashā’irah upon that which the Prophet and his companions are upon? Did the Prophet ﷺ say "ar-Raḥmān ‘alā al-‘Arsh istawā" means istawlà? Did the Prophet ﷺ say "yabqā wajhu rabbika dhī al-jalāli wa al-ikrām" — did he say that means something else about Allah? Did he say "wa jā’a amru rabbik" — did he say these ta’wīlāt bāṭilah?
The Prophet — did he say that to us? If he did, show it to us. Wallāhi, we will take it. We will take it. This is the point.
Did the Prophet ﷺ say that if the evidences of the Qur'an go against each other, give precedence? Did the Prophet ﷺ say this to the people?
No, but he also didn’t say it the other way around. He said the opposite: "عَلَيْكُمْ بِسُنَّةِي وَسُنَّةِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ الْمَهْدِيِّينَ." If they are going to say no to the Qur'an, and if they are going to say no to the Sunnah — of course they’re going to say no to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. They’re not saying no, they’re just trying to understand it in a different way. And we haven’t got the companions with us to ask them, "What exactly did you believe about تَأْوِيلَاتِ بَاطِلَةِ?"
There was an example — was it وَاصِل بْن عَطَاء or عَمْرُو بْن عُبَيْد? One of them — I think it was عَمْرُو بْن عُبَيْد, or وَاصِل بْن عَطَاء — one of the two. And if it’s not, insha’Allah someone will correct me, insha’Allah.
He said: "If the Prophet was to say this to me, I would not accept it from him. If Allah was to say this to me, I would say to Allah: You did not worship me — You did not enslave me — to believe in this." And a statement like that — if Abu Bakr said this to me, I would not accept it from him. He said, "If Sulaiman ibn Mehran said this to me, I would not accept it from him." He goes through the chain: "If so-and-so said this to me, I would not accept it from him. If the Prophet said it to me, I would not accept it from him. If Allah said this to me, I would say: This is not what You enslaved me upon."
And you get my point.
The issue is not, Shahid — again, and I keep pointing this point out — the issue is not: these people, one issue flipped, it’s a rare situation, it’s a slight confusion here, it’s no problem. It’s not: يَعْتَقِدُونَ ثُمَّ يَسْتَدِلُّونَ — they believe, then they look for evidence for what they believe, and then they get misguided from it.
The Qur'an and the Sunnah — of course, if I come today right now and I have a belief, and I go to the Qur'an, I’m going to find something that I think goes with it. If it doesn’t, I’m going to make that verse look like it’s to my advantage. So you think: “Oh, he brought an Ayah.” But the premise and the way it’s coming from is totally different.
The Ashā’irah today — the people, those who are Ashā’irah and those who champion for them — I don’t like mentioning names. Those who champion for them — look at them today. Are they people who, when they talk, say: "قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى، قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ"?
Are they like that? Do they teach دَوَاوِينُ السُّنَّةِ? Do they teach رِيَاضُ الصَّالِحِينَ, بُلُوغُ الْمَرَام, عُدَّةُ الْأَحْكَام, بُخَارِي, مُسْلِم, أَبُو دَاوُد, التِّرْمِذِي, ابْنُ مَاجَه?
I went to India, and I met people from Deoband. And it's the biggest representation on the Ashāʿirah side. If I tell you this — when I went to the ḥadīth classes, and I went there — Bukhārī, Abū Dāwūd, Tirmidhī, Ibn Mājah, the books of ḥadīth — they had them, but it was added later.
The thing is — the truth is, wallāhi — you can't use… the Sunnah is not that big to them. And that — if you’re like that in ‘Aqeedah, how are you going to be in Fiqh? حَدِّثْ وَلَا حَرَجْ — it’s gone.
I want to move on to some closing questions and then give you a chance to summarize. But before I do — I did raise the question that the companions differed in ‘Aqeedah, and a lot of people use this to prove that it’s okay for us to have differences in ‘Aqeedah. So what do you say about that?
A few points to stand over:
Number one — can someone say, for example, the Sahabah never differed on issues of Fiqh? No, they can’t say that. But there are Fiqh issues which they never differed on — correct. But when you say that statement, it looks like they differed on the whole of Fiqh. Exactly — that’s important that you understand. So they didn’t differ on the whole of ‘Aqeedah either.
So when you say that, it seems like you can differ in any issues of ‘Aqeedah. ‘Aqeedah has Usool, and it has issues of Furoo — very small issues in ‘Aqeedah which are Furoo, they’re not fundamental issues. Yes, they differed on those issues.
So it’s better to say Furoo’ of Sharia, and then Usool.
So the Furoo’ they differed upon, and the Usool — they never differed upon. The Usool can be issues of Fiqh, and it can be issues of ‘Aqeedah. That’s an important point that you understand.
And those issues of Furoo’ that they differed upon — itself can be discussed and looked into. A person can look into it.
What about later on — like the four Imams that we discussed last week — and you affirmed them all to be from Ahl al-Sunnah. Did they not differ? Like for example, one of them in particular — in terms of their definition of Imān — is that not an Asli issue that they differed in?
Imam Abu Ḥanīfah was from the Murji’at al-Fuqahā’, for example.
The thing with Imam Abu Ḥanīfah — the reality is that the scholars… a lot has been transmitted from him which has no basis. This issue is one of the issues that clicked — that he had that belief — and the scholars, because of that, categorized him as Murji’at al-Fuqahā’ for that belief of Imān.
And after I mentioned the Qur’an and the Sunnah — I mean, I don’t think anyone should justify… See, this is the thing — I’ve always found it very shocking. Even when I was a beginner student of knowledge — and I still am a beginner student of knowledge — is that, if a person does a mistake… And these great Imams in Islam — you have to understand, when they did mistakes, it wasn’t to look for mistakes. They didn’t look for those mistakes. It sometimes happened from them.
You come — and he was just… if the evidence reached him, he would have taken it. That’s the reality of those Imams.
You come — and what happens in the madhabs, especially in the Madhhab of the Hanafiyyah — that’s very common — they make a Qā‘idah for that mistake of his.
No, but he also didn't say the other way around. He said the opposite: عَلَيْكُمْ بِسُنَّتِي وَسُنَّةِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ الْمَهْدِيِّينَ. If they are going to say no to the Qur’an, and if they are going to say no to the Sunnah, of course they’re going to say no to Abu Bakr and Umar.
They’re not just saying no — they’re trying to understand it in a different way. And we don’t have the companions with us today to ask them: “What exactly do you believe about تَأْوِيلَاتٍ بَاطِلَة?”
There was an example — was it Wasim al-‘Ata’ or ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd? One of the two — I think it was ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd, or Wasim al-‘Ata’. And if it’s not, insha’Allah someone will correct me.
He said, “If the Prophet was to say this to me, I would not accept it from him. If Allah was to say this to me, I would say to Allah: ‘You did not enslave me to believe in this.’” A statement like that — “If Abu Bakr said this to me, I would not accept it from him. If Sulaiman ibn Mihran said it to me, I would not accept it.” He goes through the chain — “If so-and-so said this to me, I would not accept it.” “If the Prophet said it, I would not accept it.” “If Allah said this to me, I would say: ‘This is not what You enslaved me on.’”
You get my point?
The issue is not... shahid... again, and I keep pointing this point out: The issue isn’t that these people — one issue flipped. It’s not like a rare situation, a slight confusion — that’s not the issue. The issue is: يَعْتَقِدُونَ ثُمَّ يَسْتَدِلُّونَ — They first believe, then they go looking for the evidence to fit that belief. And that leads to misguidance.
The Qur’an and Sunnah — Of course, if I come today and I already have a belief, I’ll go to the Qur’an, I’ll find something that seems to support me. And if it doesn’t, I’ll reinterpret that verse to work in my favor. So you’ll think: “Oh, he brought an ayah.” But the premise and where it’s coming from — it’s totally different.
The Ash’aris today, the people who are Ash’ari, and those who champion for them — I don’t like mentioning names — but those who champion for them, look at them. Are they people who, when they speak, they say: قال الله تعالى، قال رسول الله ﷺ? Are they like that?
Do they teach Dawawin al-Sunnah? Do they teach Riyadh al-Salihin, Bulugh al-Maram, Uddat al-Ahkam, Bukhari, Muslim, Abi Dawood, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah?
I went to India and met people from Deoband, and it's the biggest representation of the Ash’ari side. If I tell you this — when I went to the Hadith program and attended, Bukhari, Abi Dawood, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Kutub al-Hadith — they were on their shelves, but added later. The truth is — wallahi — the Sunnah is not that big to them.
And if you’re like that in Aqeedah, how are you going to be in Fiqh? Haddith wa la haraj — don’t even ask.
Closing Questions
Let me move on to some closing questions and then give you a chance to summarize. Earlier I raised the question that the companions differed in Aqeedah, and people use this to prove it’s okay for us to differ in Aqeedah. What do you say about that?
A few points:
Number one, can someone say, for example: "The Sahabah never differed on issues of Fiqh"? No — they can’t say that. But there are Fiqh issues which they never differed on — correct. But when you say that statement, it looks like they differed on all of Fiqh. That’s important to understand.
So, they didn’t differ on the whole of Aqeedah. When you say that, it seems like it’s okay to differ in any issue of Aqeedah. But Aqeedah has Usool and Furoo’ — Very small issues in Aqeedah which are furoo’, not fundamental. Yes — they differed on those issues.
So it’s better to say: Usool and Furoo of the Shari’ah. And in Aqeedah as well, the Usool they never differed upon.
And Usool can include issues in both Fiqh and Aqeedah — that’s important. The furoo’ they differed upon — those can be discussed and looked into.
What about later scholars, like the four Imams? We discussed them last week, and you affirmed they are all from Ahl al-Sunnah. Didn’t they differ on a fundamental issue — for example, the definition of Iman?
Yes — Imam Abu Hanifah was from Murji’at al-Fuqaha’. This is a known issue. A lot has been transmitted from him that has no basis. This is one of the issues that clicked — that he had this belief, and scholars categorized him as Murji’at al-Fuqaha’.
And I’ve already mentioned the Qur’an and Sunnah. No one should justify it. See — even when I was a beginner student of knowledge — and I still am — I always found this shocking.
If a person makes a mistake — and these were great Imams of Islam — you have to understand, they didn’t look for mistakes, they weren’t aiming for errors. It just happened sometimes.
And if the evidence reached them, they would have taken it. But what happens in the Madhhabs — especially in Madhhab al-Hanafiyyah — they make a Qāʿidah out of his mistake. Instead of saying: “He was wrong and the correct view is this,” they justify his mistake and say: “Well, maybe he saw a different daleel…”
Some even went to the extreme of saying: “Anything Abu Hanifa did which is opposite to the evidence, we do naskh of it.” That’s extreme.
The point is: The Imam is a human being — he can be right or wrong. Abu Hanifa — this issue of Masalat al-Iman — he was critiqued on this, and he went against the Ijma’.
Imam al-Bukhari actually refuted him on some of these issues. Many people don’t know that Imam al-Bukhari has a refutation on Abu Hanifah.
That’s why the early Hanafis didn’t like Bukhari. He wrote a Risalah on the issue of raising your hands in prayer, which the Hanafis don’t believe in. And also on reciting the Basmalah in Salah — Imam al-Bukhari wrote a book on this, which was a refutation against them.
So until recently, many of them were anti-Bukhari.
It’s one of those issues — he went against Ahl al-Sunnah.
Next question: Is Aqeedah regional? Some people say: “Saudi has one Aqeedah, another country has a different Aqeedah.”
No — actually, it’s the opposite.
Imam Abu al-Muzaffar al-Sam‘ani, whom I mentioned earlier — Shaykh of Khurasan, originally Hanafi for 30 years, then Shafi‘i for 20 — He wrote a book called al-Intisār li Ahl al-Hadith.
He said, “Wherever you travel in the world and meet the people of Hadith — they speak the same.”
And that’s the reality. Go to India — meet someone Salafi or Ahl al-Hadith — they’re the same. Go to the UK — the same. America — same. Africa — same. Somalia — same.
If you’re sincere and honest, you’ll realize: They are the same wherever they are.
So if you're sincere and honest, you will always realize they are the same wherever they are.
Okay, next question I have is—and you touched on this very briefly during the podcast—why have the majority of the scholars in the history of Islam been from the Ashʿarāʾ?
By that statement, “the Ashʿarāʾ,” the majority of the people—through the podcast I've proven it. The statement of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr I brought—he brought that the Mālikīyah, he says—
You said, "through the podcast I've proven it." You mean, through the podcast you've disproven it— That statement that the Ashʿarāʾ are the majority.
Yeah, I've proven that the Ashʿarāʾ are not the majority. Not the majority, or disproved the argument.
So the Ashʿarāʾ—this statement, by the way, that the Ashʿarāʾ are the majority—is a claim Subkī came with. It’s in a kitāb called Muʿīd al-Niʿam wa-Mubīd al-Niqam, something like that. Okay. And in that book, he mentioned that, and then they all took it on board.
If I go through some of the names of the great scholars of Islam— Ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī was a Shāfiʿī, right? He's a Shāfiʿī, right. I'm just going to mention within the Shāfiʿī madhhab. I won’t go to the Mālikīyah—I can do that in the Mālikī madhhab. I can go to Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, I can go to Ibn Zayd al-Qayrawānī, I can go to Khawzīm al-Mindād, and other imams of the Mālikī madhhab.
Just stick to the Shāfiʿī madhhab. Just the Shāfiʿī madhhab—to show you within the Shāfiʿī madhhab that there are more Ahl al-Sunnah than there are Ashʿarāʾ.
So I'm going to mention 22 names from the Shāfiʿī madhhab alone, who had a big, significant role in this madhhab of Imām al-Shāfiʿī, who were Immat al-Sunnah within the Shāfiʿī madhhab, who either studied with Imām al-Shāfiʿī or who studied with the students of Shāfiʿī.
The first one is Imām Abū Bakr ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Zubayr al-Qurashī al-Ḥumaydī al-Makkī, who died in 219. He has a kitāb where he talks about the ʿaqīdah of Ahl al-Sunnah—it's called Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl al-Sunnah. He studied from Imām al-Shāfiʿī, the first students of Imām al-Shāfiʿī, and he even traveled with him to Egypt and studied with him there. So he has a kitāb called Uṣūl al-Sunnah. Many people study it—I’ve taught it and it’s online.
The second imam is Abū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf ibn Yaḥyā al-Qurashī al-Būwayṭī, who died in the year 231. And he's considered min khawāṣ ṭullāb al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī. And Shāfiʿī said about him, laysa aḥadun aḥaq bi majlisī min Yūsuf ibn Yaḥyā—Imām al-Shāfiʿī said there's no one who deserves to occupy my seat—Shāfiʿī said this—other than Abū Yaʿqūb al-Būwayṭī. And he said—Shāfiʿī said—there's no one more knowledgeable than him. And his ʿaqīdah and his position regarding the issue of khalq al-Qurʾān is well known, and he was killed for this issue—he died in prison because of the issue of khalq al-Qurʾān.
The third one is Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyā al-Muzanī—the second student. The third student I'm going to mention—I mentioned Abū Bakr al-Ḥumaydī, I mentioned Abū Yaʿqūb al-Būwayṭī—now I mention Ismāʿīl ibn Yaḥyā al-Muzanī, who died in the year 264 Hijrī. He authored a kitāb, Sharḥ al-Sunnah, that we teach in our dawrah. He's a student of Shāfiʿī.
The fourth one is al-Imām Aḥmad ibn ʿUmar ibn Surayj. He’s also a virtuous person. His ʿaqīdah in Sunnah is well known— Ibn al-Qayyim brought it all in his Ijtimāʿ al-Juyūsh al-Islāmiyyah.
The fifth one is al-Imām Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Khuzaymah. He has a kitāb called Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, and he also has a Kitāb al-Ṣifāt.
Number six is Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Azharī, who died in the year 370 Hijrī. He's a ʿālim jalīl. He has a kitāb called Tahdhīb al-Lughah, which now we worked on.
The seventh one is Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ismāʿīlī. He has a kitāb called Iʿtiqād Aʾimmat al-Ḥadīth. He's an imām—from fuqahāʾ al-Shāfiʿī—al-faqīh, al-imām, al-ḥāfiẓ. One of the greatest Shāfiʿīs in fiqh, ḥadīth, and taṣnīf.
Number eight is al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Abī Ṭāhir Abū Ḥāmid al-Isfarāʾīnī, who died in the year 460 Hijrī. I told you about him. Ibn Kathīr said about him, Shaykh al-Shāfiʿiyyah, without any argumentation—until he was said to be al-Shāfiʿī al-Thānī. Okay. Ibn Kathīr said this, and I told you he is aṣḥāb al-wujūh.
Number nine is al-Imām al-ʿAllāmah al-Shahīr Abū al-Qāsim Hibatullāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Manṣūr al-Rāzī. He is known as al-Lālākāʾī. He has a kitāb called Sharḥ al-Uṣūl, and it is considered from the imams of the Shāfiʿiyyah. Ibn al-Qayyim said about him—he is one of the imams of the Shāfiʿiyyah.
Al-Imām Abū al-Qāsim Saʿd ibn ʿAlī al-Zanjānī has a Rāʾiyyah in ʿaqīdah. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Badr explained it. It is called al-Qaṣīdah al-Rāʾiyyah. His ʿaqīdah is documented in there, and it is shocking—because he talks about Allah's names and attributes.
Number eleven, al-Imām Abū Muẓaffar Muḥammad Manṣūr ibn Muḥammad al-Samʿānī, who died in the year 489 Hijrī. He said about him—he was very strong—his passion was for the people of ḥadīth and Sunnah. He said about him—he was a thorn in the necks of the people of innovation, and he was a ḥujjah for the people of ḥadīth.
Number twelve: Al-Imām Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn ibn Masʿūd al-Baghawī, who died in the year 516 Hijrī. Ibn al-Qayyim said—he has another book called Sharḥ al-Sunnah. It is worth reading.
Number thirteen: Al-Imām Abū Nuʿaym ʿUbaydullāh ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad al-Aṣbahānī, who died in the year 517 Hijrī. He is well known as Ibn Ḥaddād. He is well known as Ibn Ḥaddād. Ibn al-Qayyim mentions his ʿaqīdah in his book Ijtimāʿ al-Juyūsh al-Islāmiyyah.
Number fourteen: Al-Imām Abū al-Ḥusayn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Malik al-Qarjī, who died in the year 532 Hijrī. And he mentions some of it.
Number fifteen: Al-Imām Qawwām al-Sunnah Ismāʿīl ibn Muḥammad al-Taymiyyah al-Shāfiʿī. He is the author of the book al-Targhīb wal-Tarhīb. He is the author of the book al-Targhīb wal-Tarhīb and the book al-Ḥujjah fī Bayān al-Mahajjah. Wallāhi, that book is powerful.
Number sixteen—and I referenced a lot of it—the next one is Al-Imām Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Ibrāhīm al-Salmanī. The next one is Al-Imām Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Ibrāhīm al-Salmanī. He died in the year 550 Hijrī. He died in the year 550 Hijrī.
Number seventeen: Al-Imām Abū al-Ḥasan Yaḥyā ibn Abī al-Khayr al-ʿImrānī. He has a book called al-Qadariyyāt al-Ashrār. I was going to quote some of it from him, but I left it because of time. He is one of the people—he has a book called al-Bayān where he also explains al-Muhadhdhab. Ibn Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī—he quotes him a lot. He quotes him a lot.
Number eighteen: Al-Majduddīn Abū al-Faḍāʾil Yūsuf ibn Muḥammad al-Dimashqī. He also has a Qaṣīdah in the Sunnah.
Number nineteen: Al-Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qāhir ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Muḥammad al-Tibrīzī. He died in the year 740 Hijrī. And he is Shuyūkh al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī, and he has an ʿaqīdah also.
Number twenty: Al-Imām Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān al-Dhahabī, who died in the year 748 Hijrī. Al-Imām Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān—he has a book called al-ʿUluw lil-ʿAliyy al-Ghaffār, where he wants to prove Allah is above His throne.
Al-Imām Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān—Al-Imām Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān is a lie. Because what I just mentioned to you is: Ashāʿirah believe the Qur’ān is makhlūq.
Nawawi didn't believe that. Wala Ibn Hajar never believed that. One of the fundamental beliefs of the Asha'ira today is masalat al taqleed fil itiqad.
I mean taqleed fil tawhid. You can't do taqleed in tawhid right? So what do you do in tawhid? We believe that but we don't believe in the same way. They believe that taqleed in tawhid means the person has to come with another way of itibar.
The person needs to look at himself first, that's what they say, and then he makes his way up, he looks at the sky. By the way, inshallah ta'ala if Allah gives me another chance, Asha'ira believe a'mat un nas, the people, are all kuffar. They're takfiriyoon in that issue, you have to remember that now.
But due to time I can't, I don't like to just say something like that and not give them my truth for it. But anyways, look at Bayjuri Sharah, the bait of Laqani. They don't believe that, da'mat un nas because they're muqallidah.
They just take the belief. They don't do this another way of itibar. They don't look around, look from themselves upwards.
They don't do that. So to them, if you don't do that, you're not a Muslim. You're not what? You're not a Muslim.
It's gharib. It's tanakudat. And iman to them is tasteeg as well.
It's contradicting. The point I'm trying to come to is, the sha'ira, they have this belief called another way of itibar. They hold on to it.
It's one of their fundamental beliefs. Nawawi in his Sharh al-Sulh al-Muslim refutes that. When he comes to the hadith of Mu'adh ibn Jabal, he goes the first thing in Islam is ash-hadu an la ilaha illa Allah wa ash-hadu anna Muhammadan Rasulullah.
Ibn Hajar saying he's an ashaari, in Lisan al-Mizan if you go to Ibn Hajar, what did he do? Ibn Hajar, what he did was he came to Fakhruddin al-Razi and he was talking about him. He says, awsa bi wasiyatin tadullu ala annahu hassana a'tiqadahu. He said he gave a wasiya, a farewell.
Ibn Hajar gave a wasiya. Sorry, Fakhruddin al-Razi gave a wasiya. Ibn Hajar is saying this.
He's saying Fakhruddin al-Razi gave a wasiya, a farewell. This farewell is what? That he repented, which is well known that he's repented. If we get another series on the issue of Allah's name and attributes, I will go into details in there, inshallah, in the reference and exactly where it's written in.
Ibn Hajar is saying Fakhruddin al-Razi gave a wasiya where he perfected his aqeedah. I just mentioned Fakhruddin al-Razi is one of the horsemen and he's one of the forefront imams, ashaariya. And he's saying that he perfected his aqeedah.
Ibn Hajar, he's an imam. Unless the ashaariya aqeedah to Ibn Hajar is not what he... By the way, when you say someone is ashaariya, did Ibn Hajar ever claim it? Bring us. I dare them.
I dare them when Ibn Hajar said I am ashaariya. Or Nawawi said I am ashaariya. Prove it to me.
Did they say I'm ashaariya? Did they say the opposite? The ashaariya is salama, they're Muslims. They're safe. There's nothing.
What we do accept is though, and it's the reality in front of us, Ibn Hajar and Nawawi, both came to some of Allah's names and attributes and they did. They did do ta'weel of it. There's a difference, I told you this before.
A person who doesn't believe the Quran as soon as evidence or proof whatsoever, comes to Allah's names and attributes with a belief before that and that the Quran as soon as not a proof in and within itself, which I mentioned by Qillani statements and Ya'ani Bayjurri and Laqani and all these, I mentioned this, Sunusi and what he said, mal-usool al-kufr, at-tamasu bi-dawahil al-nusus. Ibn Hajar believed that. That is from the foundation of kufr, to hold on to the Quran and the sunnah.
That's what ashaariya believe. The forefront, the card carriers of the ashaariya is Subki. It's well known.
Shahrastari, well known. We're not debating these people. Abu Ma'ali al-Juwaini, Abu Ghazali, Ya'ani Baqillani, Sa'didina Taftazani, Nufawrak.
These are your people, we admit. Lakin Nawawiyu akhtaa, he did mistakes, he did ta'weel of ba'du al-sifat. And an example for this is Mujahid al-Mujabarin for example.
When he came to the ayah Surat al-Qiyamah, wujuhun yawma idhin nazira, ila rabbiha nazira. He did ta'weel of the mu'tazila, Mujahid al-Mujabarin. He said tantazilu thamabara biha.
Has anyone ever attributed Mujahid al-Mujabarin to the mu'tazila? Anyone ever say that? No. Idan mujarrad a person does ta'weel of a sifat from a verse, doesn't necessarily mean that they are a what? That they are a mu'tazili or that they are ashaari. Nobody will say that.
It's like saying salafis are ashaaris right now because we agree with ashaara in the issue of the companions. So you're saying Imam Nawawi fell into mistakes when it came to names and attributes of Allah. Ibn Hajar Not even unrestrictedly, there are characteristics like uloo Allah, Allah being above his throat.
By the way, Nawawi is a risalah, I haven't personally come across it and I want to be fair. I recently saw a clip, so I don't know the authenticity, I haven't looked into it deeply. I came across a clip of Sheikh Salih ibn Abdullah ibn Hamid al-Usaymi mentioning that Nawawi repented from the belief of the ashaara.
And he what? And he also repented from that and there's a kitab he wrote in his aqeedah. Now, I haven't read it yet and it's really to be honest the first time I ever heard it. But there is something I used to see all the time which kind of shocked me.
Which is Ibn Attar, who is a noble student of Nawawi, was not an ashaari. And he's the card carrier of Nawawi. He was called small Nawawi.
Spread the works of Nawawi. Why he never became an ashaari, that was always on my mind. And as for Ibn Hajar, you're saying Fakhruddin al-Razi actually repented from his belief towards the end of his life.
And Ibn Hajar looked at that repentance and actually said, now he's perfected his aqeedah. Yeah, and when you look at them, they speak about ashaara as an entity that stands. That's what they say.
But they don't refer to themselves as ashaara when they have the opportunity. Okay, my next question is, and I'll make this the final question insha'Allah. Well, I think the final question was, but I think we're well past that point.
So I think I will leave it to you to summarise what we've discussed today insha'Allah and then we'll close it there. Well, there's so much to say. I don't think we've summarised.
Go back to the podcast, watch it in detail. Take notes. That's my advice to the brothers and sisters.
This is a deen. And so take your time, look at it. Ashaara didn't spread because of the haq and every ahlul sunnah are batil.
No, they spread because of political reasons as well. There were political reasons why they spread. Like for example, Muhammad Nur al-Din al-Zanki was a fair and just ruler.
He placed Ibn al-Asakir and gave him Dar al-Hadith in Damascus and said teach. And he's the author of the Kitab Tabi'un al-Kadhim al-Mustari fi ma nusiba ila al-Imam Ibn al-Hassan al-Ash'ari. There are also external other factors that helped him and supported them in becoming in power and becoming seen as the ahlul sunnah.
Not necessarily because they are ahlul sunnah. Again, what helped them was the fact that they concealed their belief. I told you what Ibn Qudamah said about them.
Bay Juri himself, what he said when it comes to Allah's names. We already say this in private circles when we're teaching students. Also, the fact that they came out to refute the Mu'tazila and at that moment no one was out there to be refuted other than the Mu'tazila.
The whole heat was on the Mu'tazila. So when they came out and they refuted the Mu'tazila, everybody saw them to be min ahlul sunnah. That's why they deceived the ummah and for a long time it was silenced and they spread until the people woke up to them and realized what are these people? What do they believe? And their corrupt belief was seen and Allah brought Shaykh of Islam, Ahmad ibn Abdul Halim ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani and he destroyed them.
The foundations, shaked them. They imprisoned him. They tried to silence him.
But he really refuted them deeply and Ibn al-Qayyim came and never left nothing for him. When Ibn Taymiyyah wrote his Dar'u Ta'aridh al-Aql wal-Naql and that book came out, Fakhr al-Din was their imam, imam al-A'adham. And now he got refuted.
Ibn al-Qayyim summarized that book in his Suwa'iq wal-Mursala. It's a summary. Suwa'iq wal-Mursala is a summary of Dar'u Ta'aridh al-Aql wal-Naql.
A talib al-ilmu can't read Dar'u Ta'aridh al-Aql wal-Naql. He should read Suwa'iq wal-Mursala. By the way, Suwa'iq wal-Mursala is not actually finished.
It's not complete. So it's better to just read the Muqtasir Suwa'iq wal-Mursala.
