Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Allah looked at the hearts of His creation, and He chose Nabiullah Muhammad to be the Prophet. Allah specifically selected and chose the companions Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. He selected them to be around the Messenger A.S. We were not selected. We did not qualify.
We did not meet that level of piety—they were that pious. So, you are neither from the Muhajireen nor from the Ansar. The option that you have today is to be the followers of who? The Muhajireen and Ansar.
Inshallah Ta'ala, today, the way I want to structure the lecture is to discuss what happened from the time the Prophet passed away A.S. until now—the groups that we find within Islam and the problems that occurred in that time—and, Inshallah Ta'ala, shed light on what is upon us to be and the way that we should be as Muslims.
Al-Hikmah, Nabiullah Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, when he passed away—after 23 years of prophecy, 23 years of conveying the message of Islam—the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam passed away at the age of 63, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. And when he passed away, he had conveyed and passed on the message of Islam. He fulfilled the responsibility that was upon him.
As Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says in the Quran:
يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ
Muhammad, convey that which is upon you—convey the message that has been given to you.
So the Prophet A.S. did that—he conveyed that message. Even in the last moments of his life, he conveyed what was upon him. He did not hold back, A.S.
Even on the day of Hajjatul Wada', where the largest congregation ever seen came together in Hajj—approximately 124,000 people—the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said to them:
هَلْ بَلَّغْتُ؟
"Did I convey the message to you all?"
They all said:
بَلَى
"You did, Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam."
Then the Prophet said:
اللَّهُمَّ فَاشْهَدْ
"Oh Allah, be my witness that I conveyed. I did my job. I told them what You told me to tell them, and I prohibited for them that which You told me to prohibit."
Nabiullah Muhammad had the best of students. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud radiyallahu ta'ala anhu said:
مَنْ كَانَ مُسْتَنًّا فَلْيَسْتَنَّ بِمَنْ قَدْ مَاتَ، فَإِنَّ الْحَيَّ لَا تُؤْمَنُ عَلَيْهِ الْفِتْنَةُ، أُوْلَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ مُحَمَّدٍ أَبَرُّ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ قُلُوبًا وَأَعْمَقُهَا عِلْمًا وَأَقَلُّهَا تَكَلُّفًا، اخْتَارَهُمُ اللَّهُ لِصُحْبَةِ نَبِيِّهِ، فَاعْرِفُوا لَهُمْ حَقَّهُمْ وَاتَّبِعُوهُمْ عَلَى آثَارِهِمْ، فَإِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا عَلَى الْهُدَى الْمُسْتَقِيمِ
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said: Whoever wants to hold on to any people, let him hold on to the way of the Companions. They had the best hearts, the best minds, and were the most sincere and genuine of people. Allah chose and selected them to be around the Prophet.
In another statement, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ نَظَرَ إِلَى قُلُوبِ عِبَادِهِ، فَوَجَدَ قَلْبَ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَيْرَ قُلُوبِ الْعِبَادِ، فَاصْطَفَاهُ لِنَفْسِهِ وَابْتَعَثَهُ بِرِسَالَتِهِ، ثُمَّ نَظَرَ إِلَى قُلُوبِ الْعِبَادِ بَعْدَ قَلْبِ مُحَمَّدٍ، فَوَجَدَ قُلُوبَ أَصْحَابِهِ خَيْرَ قُلُوبِ الْعِبَادِ، فَجَعَلَهُمْ وُزَرَاءَ نَبِيِّهِ يُقَاتِلُونَ عَلَى دِينِهِ
Allah looked at the hearts of His creation, and He chose Nabiullah Muhammad to be the Prophet. Then Allah looked at the remaining hearts and specifically selected the Companions—Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. He selected them to be around the Messenger, alayhi salatu wa salam. We were not selected. We did not qualify. We did not meet that level of piety—they were that pious.
Allah mentioned that following the way of those Companions is the path to salvation. Allah tabarak wa ta'ala says in the Quran:
وَالسَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ
Allah spoke about the Companions:
وَالسَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ
The Muhajireen are the people who migrated from Mecca to Medina.
وَالْأَنْصَارِ
The Ansar are the people of Medina who welcomed the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
Allah said these two groups—Muhajireen and Ansar—and those who follow them in goodness. There are only three groups: Muhajireen, Ansar, and those who follow them in goodness. After that, Allah says He is pleased with them.
He is pleased with who? The Muhajireen, the Ansar, and those who follow them in goodness.
So, you are neither from the Muhajireen nor from the Ansar. The option you have today is to be a follower of who? The Muhajireen and Ansar.
فَبِهُدَاهُمُ ٱقْتَدِهْ
Follow their guidance.
Inshallah Ta'ala, today, the way I want to structure the lecture is to briefly discuss—without going into great detail—what happened from the time the Prophet passed away, alayhi salatu wa salam, until now. The groups that we find within Islam, the problems that occurred at that time, and, Inshallah Ta'ala, shed light on what is upon us regarding how we should be as Muslims in our beliefs, actions, and so on.
When the Messenger died, he told his Companions that he left for them two things. What did he say?
"I left for you the Book of Allah and the Sunnah."
The Prophet also prophesized that after his passing, there would be trials and tribulations. One time, the Prophet climbed a high place in the city of Medina and said to the Companions:
إِنِّي أَرَى الْفِتَنَ تَقَعُ فِي بُيُوتِكُمْ كَمَوَاقِعِ الْقَطْرِ
"I see that trials (fitna) will enter your houses just as the rain falls everywhere."
Here’s your corrected transcript with only grammar and structure fixes while keeping the content unchanged:
The Prophet was informing them that there was going to be a fitna like that:
كَقِطْرِ اللَّيْلِ الْمُظْلِمِ يُصْبِحُ الرَّجُلُ مُؤْمِنًا وَيُمْسِي كَافِرًا وَيُمْسِي مُؤْمِنًا وَيُصْبِحُ كَافِرًا يَبِيعُ دِينَهُ بِعَرَضٍ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا
A fitna like that—where a person in the morning is a believer, and by the evening, he is a disbeliever. And in the evening, he is a believer, and by the morning, he is a disbeliever. He will sell his religion for a small portion of worldly benefit.
So he told them all of this. He even taught them, alayhissalaatu wassalaam, how to deal with the fitna that would occur.
As you know, at the time of Abu Bakr, radiyallahu anhu, there were people who refused to pay zakat. What were they referred to as? Mani' al-zakat—those who rejected and refused to pay zakat. They refused to what? They refused to pay zakat.
Abu Bakr, radiyallahu anhu, fought them. He what? He fought them. He fought them on this issue of not paying zakat.
Umar said to him: "Don't fight these people; they are Muslims."
But Abu Bakr replied:
وَاللهِ لَوْ مَنَعُونِي عِقَالًا
"By Allah, if they refuse to give me an iqal—"
An iqal is what you use to tie your camel or horse to a tree. That rope—historically, it is said that the black rope Arabs wear on their heads today originated from what they used to tie their camels with.
Abu Bakr continued:
"If they refuse to give me even that insignificant rope, I will fight them for it! They used to give it to the Prophet, and now they refuse to give it to me? I will fight them for it—let alone wealth that has reached the required amount for zakat. If they refuse to give what is due for the sake of Allah and this religion, I will fight them for it."
So Abu Bakr fought them. Umar initially advised him not to, but after Abu Bakr provided his evidences, Umar agreed that this was the right course of action, and together, they fought those people.
Abu Bakr radiyallahu anhu passed away, and that fitna, alhamdulillah, was extinguished. Then Umar took power.
The ten years that Umar ruled were years of strength, obedience, and unity. Everything returned to order under Umar, and it was difficult for anyone to disrupt it. His leadership was powerful and firm. No one could openly go against the Qur'an and Sunnah or introduce any deviation.
Imam al-Darimi narrated in the introduction of his Sunan that a man tried to do just that. His name was Sabeegh ibn Islin.
During Umar’s time, he began asking ambiguous and doubtful questions about the Qur'an, attempting to corrupt people's beliefs. He would ask:
"What does ذَارِيَاتِ ذَرْوًا mean?"
As we all know, the Qur'an contains verses that are crystal clear and others that are ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. How do we deal with ambiguous verses? We bring them back to the clear-cut verses.
Allah tells us that righteous people take the ambiguous verses and interpret them in light of the clear ones.
For example, sometimes Allah uses the word "We" in the Qur'an. This could imply royalty or plurality. How do we know which one is meant? We look at other verses:
إِنَّمَا إِلَٰهُكُمْ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ
"Indeed, your God is One."
قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
"Say, He is Allah, the One."
From these clear-cut verses, we know that when Allah says "We," it does not imply plurality—it signifies majesty and grandeur.
Sabeegh ibn Islin, however, was using ambiguous verses to confuse people.
When Umar was informed about him, he—being a leader who oversaw every detail of the Muslim community—took immediate action. He ordered:
"Bring Sabeegh ibn Islin to me!"
When Sabeegh was brought before him, Umar beat him severely until he bled.
Then Sabeegh said:
"Enough! If you want to kill me, then kill me. But if you're hitting me to bring me back to my senses, trust me—I have now realized my mistake. I have repented. Please forgive me and let me go."
Umar then told him:
"Alright, but for one year, you will be isolated so we can assess whether your repentance is genuine."
This was Umar—his leadership kept Islam clean and pure.
Then Umar radiyallahu anhu passed away, and Uthman took over.
During Uthman’s time, things were not as they used to be. Issues arose. Uthman was assassinated in his own house. His residence in Medina, where he ruled the Muslims, was besieged for days, and he was killed on a day when he was fasting.
Some narrations mention that he was reciting the Qur'an when he was killed, and that his blood fell on the ayah:
صِبْغَةَ اللَّهِ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ صِبْغَةً
"The religion of Allah—and who is better than Allah in ordaining religion?"
The assassination of Uthman led to trials and tribulations, splitting the ranks of the Muslims—even among the companions, let alone the outsiders. It was the doorway to fitna.
At this point, I want to pause and mention a hadith narrated by sixteen companions:
افترقت اليهود على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، وافترقت النصارى على اثنتين وسبعين فرقة، وستفترق أمتي على ثلاث وسبعين فرقة كلها في النار إلا واحدة
"The Jews divided into 71 sects, the Christians divided into 72 sects, and my Ummah will divide into 73 sects—all of them in the Fire except one."
From this point, the hadith has variations, as the sixteen companions who narrated it did not all report the rest of the hadith exactly the same way.
The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said that the Jews divided into 71 groups, the Christians into 72, and the Muslims into 73.
Which group has the most disunity?
The Muslims—73 groups.
Next? The Christians—72.
And the least? The Jews—71.
But is this number literal, or does it simply indicate a large amount?
In some places, numbers in the Qur'an and hadith are literal—like the five pillars of Islam. But in other places, numbers are not meant literally. For example, Allah says:
إِن تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ سَبْعِينَ مَرَّةً فَلَن يَغْفِرَ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ
"If you seek forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them."
Does this mean if the Prophet asks 71 times, they will be forgiven? No. The number 70 is not literal—it simply means a lot.
Similarly, in the hadith of the 73 sects, many scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Shatibi, and others, held that the number is not literal—it simply means that the Muslims will have the most disunity.
However, some scholars, such as al-Shahrastani and al-Baghdadi, tried to list exactly 73 sects.
But the strongest view, and Allah knows best, is that the number is not literal, but rather an indication of the severity of disunity within the Ummah.
Okay, brothers. Hatta said that if we look at the Ummah, we will realize that the groups mentioned are either four or five. We will see them later, insha’Allah. Scholars such as Yusuf ibn Asbat, Abdullah ibn Mubarak, and others mentioned that these are the main groups, and everything else stems from them. We will explore this later, insha’Allah.
Now, I have another question. When the Prophet ﷺ told the Sahabah that this Ummah would be divided into 73 groups, what was the question they asked?
Hey, put your hand up—don’t shout.
What was the question the Sahabah asked when the Prophet ﷺ informed them that the Ummah would be divided into 73 groups?
Hey, honey.
So the companions asked, "Which group will be the saved one?" Since the Prophet ﷺ had prophesied that his people—the Muslims—would be divided into 73 groups, the companions wanted to know which group would be saved.
That shows how smart and intelligent the Sahabah were. They only wanted to know what was right so they could follow it. Are we all together? This demonstrates their deep understanding and insight, may Allah be pleased with them.
So, what was the Prophet’s response?
Hey, honey, huh? What did the Prophet ﷺ say?
The Prophet ﷺ said, "The one who follows the Qur'an and the Sunnah." That’s half of what he said. There’s another part that’s missing.
Oh, yeah, what's happening?
That’s also correct, but again, it's only half the answer.
Hey, the brother in the back—whoever follows the Qur’an and the Sunnah and is on the right path.
Again, that’s only half the answer. You’re all giving half of the answer.
Hey, how do you—yes, you were smiling, so I thought you had the answer.
Ah, correct! The Prophet ﷺ said:
"Whoever is upon that which I and my companions are upon today."
That is powerful.
The saved group is not based on nationality—it’s not from Somalia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, or any specific country. The saved group is described by a set of qualities. You don’t have to sign a contract, pledge allegiance to any group or individual, or be on a list. You just have to follow this description, even if it’s in your own home.
What is it?
"Whoever is upon that which I and my companions are upon today."
So, in everything you say—in your salah, your fasting, and all acts of worship—if you can’t find the companions doing it, if you can’t find the Prophet ﷺ doing it, then what should you do?
Leave it.
The Prophet ﷺ said:
"Whatever was not part of the religion on that day will not be part of the religion today."
Just because you want it to be part of the religion, it will not become part of the religion.
So, remember this:
When the Prophet ﷺ was asked about the saved group, did he say many groups would be saved, or did he say only one group would be saved? Did he intend the number?
Okay, put your hand up if you believe the number is intended.
Wow, a lot of you put your hands up.
Now, who believes the number is not intended?
Those of you who previously said that 70, 71, 72, and 73 were not intended as exact numbers but are now saying the number is intended—you’re contradicting yourselves.
Are we all together?
For example, let’s say I contradict myself. I’ll explain my reasoning.
I believe that in the first part, the number was not intended, but here, I believe the number is intended. So, you might ask me, “How can you say that in one part of the hadith, the number is not intended, and in another part, it is?”
Am I making sense? No?
Okay, my answer to this—and in defense of my other brothers who agree—is that the number is always intended when it is clarified.
For example, when the Prophet ﷺ counted for us and said:
"Islam is built upon five pillars."
Now, we know that Islam has exactly five pillars, and the number is intended.
Similarly, what the Prophet ﷺ said after mentioning one saved group shows that the number is intended.
What did he say?
The way of the Prophet ﷺ and his companions was only one.
It’s not two, three, or four. It’s only one.
"Whoever is upon that which I and my companions are upon today."
It’s only one thing. The Prophet ﷺ and his companions were united on one thing. True or false?
So, in this case, the number is intended.
The saved group can only be one set of people—the ones who are upon what the Prophet ﷺ and his companions were upon.
Does that make sense, brothers?
The matters on which the Sahabah differed—we can also differ on. But we cannot create a new opinion.
If the Sahabah had three opinions on an issue, we can only have three opinions—we must choose from within those three.
Are we all together, brothers?
That’s why I always tell you: If someone gives you an ayah from the Qur'an or a hadith of the Prophet ﷺ, ask this question, and you will always be on the safe side:
"Did any of the companions hold this opinion?"
The interpretation you just gave from the Qur’an or hadith—were the companions upon this understanding?
Is that something you can remember easily?
If someone recites an ayah to you, say, "MashaAllah, MashaAllah!" But then ask:
"Did the companions hold this belief?"
Did Abu Bakr believe this? Did he say this? Did he act upon this?
This is a must.
If you do this, brothers, you will be safe, insha’Allah, because of this hadith:
"Whoever is upon that which I and my companions are upon today."
An opinion that was introduced later—don’t take it.
Are we all together, brothers?
Now, let’s return to our story, which we will revisit again and again, insha’Allah.
When Uthman ibn Affan, may Allah be pleased with him, was assassinated, the Sahabah differed among themselves.
Within themselves, they had disagreements.
I will go over this only at a basic level.
Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, may Allah be pleased with him, was a noble and righteous companion. He was related to who?
To Uthman ibn Affan, may Allah be pleased with him.
Mu’awiyah was already a governor—he was governing Sham.
Sham refers to the Levant—a vast land, including modern-day Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan. All these regions were under Mu’awiyah’s control.
After Uthman was assassinated, Mu’awiyah requested that those responsible for his killing be handed over.
As you know, Mu’awiyah was highly respected in Sham—the people loved him immensely.
Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, had just taken power. He told Mu’awiyah:
"Before I hand them over, you must give me bay'ah (pledge of allegiance)."
Mu’awiyah responded:
"I will not give you bay'ah until you hand over those who assassinated Uthman, because Allah says:
"And whoever is killed unjustly—We have given his heir authority. But let him not exceed limits in taking life." (Qur’an 17:33)
"If someone is killed, his family has the right to demand justice. I am only asking for justice."
Ali responded:
"If you do not give me bay'ah, I will consider you as someone breaking away from the Muslims."
This led to what saddens every Muslim—a great fitnah (trial) between Ali and Mu’awiyah.
This conflict happened in phases.
But that is not the focus here.
What I want to highlight is that before Uthman’s assassination, narrating hadith and seeking knowledge was simple. People were trustworthy, aqeedah was sound, and no one dared to fabricate narrations.
During the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab, people feared lying. Everything was smooth and goos.
Here is the corrected version of your text with grammar and related mistakes fixed while keeping the Arabic text intact:
If someone says, "Qala Rasulullah," Abdullah ibn Abbas—he said—we would all listen. We would want to hear what he has to say. But after that, a man came to Abdullah ibn Abbas one day and said to him, "Qala Rasulullah." Abdullah ibn Abbas didn’t even listen to him. The man said, "Do you not hear, Ibn Abbas, what I'm telling you?" This was after the assassination of Uthman. "Do you not hear what I said to you? I said to you, 'Qala Rasulullah.'"
Abdullah ibn Abbas said, "Listen, when the fitna happened and the trials and tribulations hit, we don’t take everything from just anybody we hear. We only take it from the people we trust and believe in." People started to lie and make up things.
Ali ibn Abi Talib, my brothers, when they fought in the ranks of the army of Ali ibn Abi Talib, there were people who were later cut away from Ali as what? Deviants. They were with Ali, fighting Muawiyah. As you all know, Ali and Muawiyah finally came to an agreement—what is known as Qadiyat al-Tahakum. Muawiyah sent someone to represent him, and Ali sent someone to represent him. Abu Musa and Amr ibn al-As—both came together, spoke, and reached a peaceful conclusion. Alhamdulillah, blood was saved, and unity was restored.
But a group of people did not like the agreement that took place between Muawiyah and Ali. So they cut off from Ali and from Muawiyah and stayed in a place called Harura in Iraq. These people who later became known as the Khawarij went against the Muslim ruler of that time—who was he? Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Now, look at this, brothers—how times change. When the Khawarij cut off from Ali ibn Abi Talib and went to Harura, Ali ibn Abi Talib did not fight them. He ignored them. He let them be.
Muawiyah and Umar ibn al-Khattab—how was Umar? If one man popped up and did something, he would get him, drag him, and bring him to him. But in Ali’s time, he didn’t have the same strength, power, and unity of the Muslims that Umar had. Times had changed.
Ibn Taymiyyah took from this that the way you deal with innovators changes from time to time. The time of Umar was one way, and the time of Ali ibn Abi Talib was another way. So Ali ignored them and let them be. Sometimes, they would even come into the masjid and yell.
What would they yell in the masjid? Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah that while Ali was giving a reminder or even a khutbah, they would stand and say: "Inil hukmu illa lillah"—the ruling is for Allah alone. Which is a true statement—only Allah has the right to judge, subhanahu wa ta'ala, no one else. That’s what they would say.
Ali would ignore them again and again until one day, they went too far. They killed the wife of a noble companion—who was pregnant. They cut open her stomach, took the baby out, and killed both her and her husband. Now, the matter was no longer words—it became a physical crime.
At that point, Ali finally prepared an army and fought them. When he killed them, he mentioned a hadith that he heard from the Prophet ﷺ, saying:
"I heard the Prophet ﷺ say..."
And he narrated the hadith in its entirety:
"There will come a group whose prayer you will belittle compared to their prayer, and their fasting compared to your fasting."
These were extreme people who believed they were more righteous than everybody else. The Prophet ﷺ said:
"If I ever meet those people, I will kill them in the same way that Allah described the people of 'Ad."
Which is what? "Fahal tara lahum min baqiyah"—Allah did not let any of them remain.
So Ali ibn Abi Talib fought them.
When you look at the Seerah, you will see that Ali never claimed his fight with Muawiyah was an act of worship or a means of drawing closer to Allah. But when he fought the Khawarij, he did claim that. He mentioned that he was getting closer to Allah by doing it, that it was an act of worship.
The First Group in Islamic History
So now, we hear about the first group that ever emerged in Islamic history—the Khawarij. I'm going to mention five groups quickly, insha'Allah, as time allows.
The Khawarij originated from a man by the name of Dhu'l-Khuwaysirah at-Tamimi.
After the Prophet ﷺ returned from the Battle of Tabuk, at a place called Jirrana, the Prophet ﷺ was distributing the ghanā'im—the spoils of war. He gave a hundred camels to Aqra ibn Habis and others, but he did not give anything to the Ansar.
Some of the young Ansar became sad and questioned why. The Prophet ﷺ heard about this and called them, giving them a heart-softening reminder. He said:
"Do you not want the people to go home with their riding beasts and their wealth, while you return home with the Prophet of Allah?"
They cried until their tears filled their beards.
As the Prophet ﷺ finished his reminder, a man came walking in. The hadith describes his appearance and how he looked. He looked at the Prophet ﷺ and said:
"Be just, Muhammad! You are not being just!"
Imagine that! A man they had never seen before telling the Prophet ﷺ to be just.
The Prophet ﷺ responded:
"If I am not just, then who is? Allah trusted me with the revelation from above the heavens, and you do not trust me with distributing camels and cows?"
The Prophet ﷺ did not take anything for himself—he only gave it to new Muslims to strengthen their faith.
As the man walked away, the Prophet ﷺ said:
"From this man’s offspring will come a group of people who will kill the Muslims and leave the non-Muslims."
The Prophet ﷺ gave a detailed description of them and warned that they would continue to emerge. He said:
"Every time a group of them rises, they will be destroyed. Then another will rise, and they will be destroyed, and this will keep happening until the last of them appears with the Dajjal."
We see these groups even today—like ISIS and al-Shabab.
The Second Group: The Shia
The second group that emerged was the Rafidah/Shia. Historically, the Shia and Khawarij have always been near each other—both in location and timing. When one is strong, the other is strong as well.
There are different sects within Shi'ism, such as the Ismailis, but today, the most powerful sect is the Ithna Ashariyyah (Twelvers). Many groups today have been influenced by the Ithna Ashariyyah—even in Yemen.
At the time of Ali, some of the Shia went too far in their beliefs about him. Ali fought them and even burned some of them alive. However, Abdullah ibn Abbas advised him, saying:
"You should not burn anyone—only Allah has the right to punish with fire."
The Third Group: The Qadariyyah
The third group was the Qadariyyah, who emerged later in the Sahaba's time. One of the early Sahaba to speak against them was Abdullah ibn Umar.
The Qadariyyah split into two groups:
Those who denied Qadar altogether.
Those who believed in Qadar, but thought humans had no free will, like a leaf in the wind.
The Fourth Group: The Mu‘tazilah
The fourth group was the Mu‘tazilah. They were an educated version of the Jahmiyyah. Their founders were Wasil ibn Ata and Amr ibn Ubaid.
Their beliefs included:
Denying that the Qur'an is the uncreated speech of Allah.
It's actually created by Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala just like we are created. One of the people who fought them, who debated with them, and destroyed them was Imam Ahmad, Rahimahullah Ta'ala. Because of that, Ahmad was beaten and put in prison.
Even Imam Al-Shafi'i, who debated them—he debated Bishr Al-Malisi, and he also debated Hafs Al-Farad. But at that time, they didn’t really come out with force until the time of Imam Ahmad. They were very smart in their tactics; they aligned themselves with the ruler, went around him, and used his power to enforce laws and regulations.
The Qadhi Al-Qudhat (Chief Judge) at the time of Imam Ahmad was Ibn Abi Du'ad. Ibn Abi Du'ad held a high position—what we would now call the Minister of Justice. He was a Mu'tazili, and when he came into power, he enforced laws requiring everyone to believe that the Qur'an was created. The scholars were forced to say that the Qur'an was created.
Ahmad Ibn Nuh, who was a friend of Imam Ahmad, was killed. Abu Ya'qub Al-Buwayti, the student of Imam Al-Shafi'i, was also killed because of the issue of Khalq Al-Qur'an. Ahmad was beaten severely and was forced to debate Ibn Abi Du'ad. When he was told to debate him, he refused, saying, "If I considered him to be from the people of knowledge, I would have debated him, but he is not from Ahl Al-'Ilm."
Nonetheless, the debate unfolded, and Ahmad destroyed him—logically, textually, and in every way. Some of that debate is actually recorded in the book Al-Radd 'ala Al-Jahmiyyah by Imam Ahmad, Rahimahullah. Ibn Kathir also mentions the discussion and the evidences that were shared in his book Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah.
Now, pay attention to this: the Mu'tazilah gave birth—not literally, but they brought about—the Ash'ariyyah.
There was a man by the name of Abu 'Ali Al-Jubba'i. He was married to the mother of Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari, making him his stepfather. Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari spent forty years as a Mu'tazili, fully embracing their beliefs and ideology. One day, he had a heated debate with his stepfather regarding Mas’alat Al-Aslah and Al-Tahseen wal-Taqbeeh Al-'Aqliyyan. During this discussion, Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari realized that his stepfather didn’t truly understand what he was saying. He felt unconvinced and, from that day forward, abandoned the Mu'tazili school of thought.
He distanced himself from their beliefs and instead aligned himself with a group he admired—the Kullabiyyah. Imam Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari did not actually create his own concepts. Rather, he refined the beliefs of the Kullabiyyah, presenting them in a more structured manner. Since he was a former Mu'tazili, he was able to refute the Mu'tazilah better than the Kullabiyyah themselves, as they were not well-versed in Mu'tazili thought. He wrote books refuting the Mu'tazilah and dealing with them intellectually.
As a result, Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari became the primary figure in combating the Mu'tazilah. Over time, the movement was attributed to him rather than the Kullabiyyah, and his followers became known as the Ash'ariyyah.
Now, pay attention here.
At the time, everyone was focused on debating the Mu'tazilah. Scholars such as Imam Ahmad and others were refuting them, as they were the ones imposing the belief of Khalq Al-Qur'an through governmental power. Because of this, all the books of refutation were directed at the Mu'tazilah.
However, in the background, the Ash'ariyyah were quietly growing in numbers without much opposition. Over time, they became more prominent, while the Mu'tazilah were eventually defeated. After Imam Ahmad's time, the scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah unanimously refuted the Mu'tazilah.
Meanwhile, the Ash'ariyyah continued to develop. Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari had students like Abu Bakr Al-Mufawwaq and Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani. From Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani came Abu Ma'ali Al-Juwayni, from whom emerged Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, and then Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi. This chain continued, shaping the thought of the Ash'ari school.
If you want to understand the Ash'ariyyah, you must study the works of four key figures:
Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani
Abu Ma'ali Al-Juwayni
Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali
Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi
These scholars, over time, gradually altered the original Ash'ari beliefs. Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani deviated 25% from what Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari initially believed. Then came Abu Ma'ali Al-Juwayni, who altered it another 25%, making a total of 50% deviation. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali then contributed another 25%, reaching 75% deviation. Finally, Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi introduced another 25% change, effectively bringing Ash'ari beliefs back to the very Mu'tazili doctrines that Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari originally opposed.
Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi even stated that the Qur'an is created, arguing, "Why are we running around and philosophizing? Let’s just tell the people the truth—we believe the Qur'an is created."
This was not the original belief of the early Ash'ari scholars, but it evolved over time. Today, the books that Ash'aris rely upon, such as Sanusi and works by Al-Bajuri and Ibrahim Al-Laqani, reflect a heavily Mu'tazili-influenced doctrine.
Now, what did Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali do? He single-handedly took the Ash'ariyyah into a second phase by introducing Tasawwuf into their theology. Originally, the Ash'ariyyah and the Sufis were separate. However, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, after experiencing an intellectual crisis, abandoned pure philosophical reasoning and turned towards mystical experiences, which he called Dalil Al-Kashf wal-Dhawq (spiritual enlightenment and taste).
One thing I like about Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali is that I genuinely believe the man is sincere when he talks. Abu Hamid is honest about himself. He doesn't make it look like he knows—he will say over four, five, or ten pages, "I don't know. I'm confused. I want Allah to give me this." And that's the truth. He goes through a psychological breakdown or meltdown, and he leaves the philosophical arguments. What does he turn towards, brothers? What he then calls دلالة الكشف والذوق.
Before, it was دلالة العقلية—rational arguments. Now, it's spiritual enhancement. And that phase is what تصوف is.
So, if you meet a person who likes Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, he is drawn to one of two phases. He either takes the تصوف side, and that's what إحياء علوم الدين is based on—are we all together?—or he takes from the side where Al-Ghazali is a formidable متكلم.
Are we all together, brothers? You all know that when he went to this side, he actually refuted the side of philosophy, right? He wrote a كتاب called إلجام العوام عن علم الكلام, holding the masses back from علم الكلام.
Are we all together?
So, he is محل النظر—this man, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, cannot be dismissed or ignored.
The world that you see today—I’m telling you this, take this from me—the world that you see goes back to two men who influenced المتكلمون. I’m telling you, all the Muslims you meet who are أهل السنة—not the Shia, but أهل السنة—they either follow مدرسة أبو حامد الغزالي or مدرسة ابن تيمية. There’s nothing after that.
صح؟ Do you guys agree?
No?
It’s either Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali or Ibn Taymiyyah.
Do you guys agree? Yes or no?
No?
You either take from scholars who draw from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah, or your scholars take from Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali. I don't know of any other two major متكلمون.
Now, I don’t mean we follow Ibn Taymiyyah blindly—no, no, of course not. We believe what he is quoting is the سلف of أهل الحديث. And they would say the same about Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali.
And that’s another discussion for another time.
Does that make sense, brothers?
That’s why it’s very important to read the works of Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, but only after you study the عقيدة of أهل السنة. Once you study the عقيدة of أهل السنة, then you can go to the works of Al-Ghazali and read them to understand this group—the أشاعرة.
The أشاعرة focus on two major things, إن شاء الله تعالى—actually, there’s more than that, but I will mention four things today.
When it comes to أسماء الله وصفاته, they have two approaches. There are two مسالك that they take regarding Allah’s names and attributes.
The first مسلك is مسلك التأويل—interpretation, or to be honest, distortion—when it comes to Allah’s names and attributes. If that doesn’t work for them, they turn to what they call تفويض.
تفويض means only Allah knows the meaning—not just the كيفية, because we all agree that no one knows the كيفية of Allah’s attributes. But they say, "We don’t even know the meaning of these verses."
So, when they read verses where Allah describes His attributes, they say, "We don’t know what this means."
In other words, they are essentially saying that the majority of the Quran—80–90% of it—we don’t know what it means.
That’s if they follow مسلك التفويض.
If they follow مسلك التأويل, then they redefine every attribute in a way that contradicts its apparent meaning.
For example, when they read the word يد (hand), they say it means قدرة (ability).
And that’s a distortion of those verses.
So, they have a problem when it comes to أسماء الله وصفاته.
That’s the first issue.
The second issue is مسائل الأسماء والأحكام—the matters of كفر and إيمان. The أشاعرة are مرجئة when it comes to إيمان.
The third issue is مسائل القضاء والقدر—they are قدرية.
The fourth issue is مسائل الوعد والوعيد—regarding those who commit major sins, they follow the معتزلة view.
The only thing the أشاعرة agree with أهل السنة on, without any issues, is مسألة الصحابة.
So, in four things, they are problematic. In one, they are good.
أسماء الله وصفاته—they have a problem.
مسائل الأسماء والأحكام—they have a problem.
مسائل القضاء والقدر—they have a problem.
مسائل الوعد والوعيد—they have a problem.
مسألة الصحابة—they are fine.
Now, when it comes to القرآن والسنة—مصدر التلقي—where they take their evidence from, the أشاعرة have two major issues.
First, they do not accept أحاديث الآحاد in عقيدة. They say it is ظني الثبوت—speculative in its transmission—so they reject it.
Second, they don’t even take المتواتر in عقيدة properly.
People don’t know this!
How?
Because they say المتواتر is ظني الدلالة—speculative in its meaning.
They don’t deny its mass transmission, but they claim its meaning is uncertain.
They say:
"How do we know the Prophet meant this?"
"How do we know he didn’t mean that?"
That’s why Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned they have عشر عقبات—ten obstacles that every text must go through before they can accept it.
So, for them:
المتواتر في العقيدة is ظني الدلالة.
الآحاد في العقيدة is ظني الثبوت.
In reality, they do not take the Quran or the Sunnah directly.
That’s the honest truth.
That’s why Ibn Taymiyyah said:
"من أصول الكفر اعتقاد ظواهر النصوص."
Taking the apparent meaning of the texts is, according to them, a foundational belief of كفر.
نعوذ بالله من ذلك.
Are we all together, brothers?
Read their books on عقيدة.
What do our أهل السنة books say?
"والدليل قوله تعالى..."
The evidence is the statement of Allah.
But their books?
They start with: "اعلم أن العقل..."—"Know that logically..."
And that’s it!
You won’t find many أدلة in their books—maybe one, two, or three verses at most.
That’s the reality.
They do not connect people to the Quran.
Are we all together, brothers?
So, when they do take from the Quran and Sunnah, it’s only when it aligns with a preconceived notion they already held.
This is a heavy topic, and it was requested that I speak about it. إن شاء الله تعالى, I hope I shed some light on it.
I will take two or three questions, إن شاء الله تعالى.
Here is your corrected transcript while maintaining accuracy and clarity:
So the way we'll do it is: we take one question from here, one question from here, and one question from the back.
Here's one question from here.
Hey Habibi, are there any books from Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali that a person can read at a beginner stage?
No. At a beginner stage, no. Only when you advance.
The books he's written in Fiqh Al-Imam Al-Shafi'i are very good. His works in the Fiqh of Imam Al-Shafi'i—very good books. Amazing. Kitab that Ibn Hajar wrote is actually taken from there. That's Insha'Allah Ta'ala.
The Kutub Al-Fiqh that he's written are originally taken from the works of his teacher. His books in Fiqh are very good, okay?
Even his Kitab Al-Mustasfa in Usul Al-Fiqh is also good.
But in his books on Aqeedah and also his Tazkiyat Al-Nufus, a student who is grounded and has knowledge—if he reads them, he'll understand where to take from and where to leave off.
Insha'Allah Ta'ala.
Here’s another question:
The person who assassinated Uthman (رضي الله عنه), did he get any fine or prison time?
Good question, Masha'Allah.
The person who assassinated Uthman (رضي الله عنه), is there any record that he was dealt with?
No. Historically, no.
Hiya—never.
There was never a Sahabi who was involved in the killing of Uthman (رضي الله عنه). No.
Just to make it clear, you're reminding me of an important point.
Because when you say Sahabi, it's serious.
There is no Sahabi who ever fell into innovation—remember that and memorize it.
None of the Sahaba fell into any of the deviated groups—remember that, okay?
Nor did any of the Sahaba ever commit Bid’ah.
Are we all together, brothers?
That's why we were told to follow the Sahaba, so remember that.
But the person asking wasn't talking about the Sahaba of the Prophet (ﷺ).
I got worried that someone might misunderstand me.
If you have a friend in these groups, my advice would be to stay away from them—that's my personal opinion.
You do not want to be influenced into having a bad view.
Would you be with someone who supports ISIS?
Exactly.
So what's the difference between being friends with a person who is Ash’ari?
No difference.
We just decided, when it comes to the Ash’ari, I don't know—I do not even believe there is anyone like Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.
I do I'tikaf on the works of Ibn Taymiyyah—that’s it.
He knew the Ash’ari better than the Ash’ari knew themselves.
If you really want to understand them, just spend the rest of your life reading the works of Ibn Taymiyyah, and I promise you, you'll have a deep understanding.
Muhsin is in the building, Masha'Allah.
Muhsin asked a very good question.
He is referring to the ayah:
اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا
And another ayah in which Allah mentions that at night, we actually die.
Allah referred to it as death every night.
So he asks: If we die every night, how is it that we are moving?
Muhsin, if you are sleeping at night, okay?
Do you know whether you are moving or not?
You know?
You know?
So you're not sleeping.
When you’re sleeping, do you know that you moved?
If you're fully asleep, would you know that you've moved?
No.
So when you wake up and realize you’re in a different position, the fact that you don’t know proves that it is a small death—that is what the ayah is referring to.
Normally, a person knows what they do. An action you do—you should be aware of it, right?
The fact that you don’t know you moved, and that you positioned yourself in another way, shows that it is a small death.
And the ultimate death is when the Day of Judgment comes.
So this death is smaller than the other one.
Another question:
Some of the Shia, they are really forward about Ibn Hajar and Nawawi, saying they were kind of Shia or that they agreed with the Shia. How would you respond?
This is a very good question.
A lot of people say: "Listen, when you prove their Aqeedah is Batil, and you prove it from evidence, they say: 'No, I'm not going to go down easily. I have big mountains with me—I have Ibn Hajar and I have Nawawi.'”
One thing we do agree with, and one thing we should also make clear, is that we don’t agree with this claim.
Ibn Hajar and Nawawi are two great Imams.
Don’t let there be any doubt about this issue.
Recently, I’ve heard some clips where people are making Takfir of Ibn Hajar, or even calling him deviant.
Brothers, we seek refuge in Allah from speaking against great men like that.
Ibn Hajar, Nawawi—may Allah have mercy upon them.
The service they did for this Ummah—only Allah knows.
And I want to remind those people:
Don't open your tongue against the people of knowledge.
By Allah, your heart will die before your body dies.
But let’s distinguish between a person falling into a mistake and a person falling into an innovation.
Yes, Ibn Hajar and Nawawi may have agreed with the Ash’ari in certain things.
But agreement does not mean they were fully upon the Aqeedah of the Ash’ari.
I just told you earlier—the Ash’ari agree with Ahlus Sunnah in some things, like the issue of Sahaba.
Does that mean they are Ahlus Sunnah?
No.
If me and a Christian both agree that someone is a good person, does that make me a Christian?
No, that’s logical absurdity.
Imam Nawawi actually believes that Allah is above the throne.
Did you guys know that?
If you claim he’s an Ash’ari, then take his stance on this issue too, right?
No, they don’t take it.
Even Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani’s Kitab Al-Tamhid—the first Taba’ah (publication) that came out—I showed it to some Ash’aris.
I told them, "Look, Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani believes that Allah is above the throne."
The next publication? They removed that part from it.
Wallahi, they did.
So, the point is: Nawawi and Ibn Hajar are two great Imams.
Yes, they made mistakes, like every scholar does.
And we ask Allah to forgive them for their mistakes.
Subhanaka Allahumma wa bihamdik, Ashhadu an la ilaha illa Anta, Astaghfiruka wa atubu ilayk.
I love you all, brothers, for the sake of Allah.
I hope you benefited, Insha’Allah.
This topic was a bit technical—do you guys agree?
Next time, we’ll do a heart-softening lecture.
Barakallahu feekum wa Jazakumullahu khayran.
If I come back, just so you guys don’t get put off—he always does these kinds of classes, I don’t.
This topic was selected and chosen for me by Sheikh Abdul Fattah, so if you guys want to blame someone, blame him Insha’Allah.
I was told to talk about this topic.
Barakallahu feekum, Abdul Fattah—Jazakallahu khairan—and also to the organizers of Dar Al-Salam for allowing me to give this talk Insha’Allah Ta’ala.
I hope I haven’t offended anyone here, Insha’Allah Ta’ala.
Barakallahu feekum wa Jazakumullahu khairan.
