Estimated Reading Time: 25 minutes
In the name of Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, his companions, and those who follow them. As for what follows:
Know, may Allah guide you to what He loves and is pleased with, that paying attention to the books of narrated creeds is not only good and commendable, but essential for anyone who wants to understand the foundations of the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah from the time of the first three preferred generations and those who followed them from the imams of guidance. It is also crucial for anyone who seeks salvation for himself on the Day of Judgment.
However, dealing with these books should not be done in a purely literalist manner, characteristic of those who go to extremes in adhering to the literal text. When this is combined with ignorance of the principles of the jurisprudence of the Salaf or with mixing it with foreign elements introduced by the Mutakallimoon of the Usool (متكلمة الأصوليين) unknowingly, the misfortune becomes even greater.
Just as knowledge of the noble Prophetic Hadith is achieved by combining knowledge of its transmission and understanding, the same applies to the narrations of the Salaf. This can only be done by acquiring the tools of understanding and jurisprudence. For this reason, the science of Usool al-Fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence) was developed. Imam ash-Shaafi’ee referred to it as the "principles of knowledge" in his book al-Umm, and imam ibn 'Abdul-Barr did the same in his book Jaami' Bayaan al-'Ilm wa Fadlihi.
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah have said in as-Saarim al-Maslool (2/512): "... Taking the opinions of fuqahaa' from general statements without referring to their explanations and the implications of their principles leads to reprehensible positions."
This includes the following:
This is where the Haddaadiyyah fell short. They are among those who are extreme in tabdee', branching off from the Madaakhilah (and Haazimi is one of their figures, but he increased in extremism in takfeer until he reached the level of the Khaarijiyyah, yet still, you find some of the Haddaadiyyah praising and commending him!!). They deviated in some aspects from the imams of the Salaf, thinking they are following in their footsteps and are their rightful heirs, as if the matter is exclusive to them. And even though they have commendable efforts in editing their books, collecting their letters, and summarizing their statements, their understanding is not relied upon due to their weak foundational tools and their abandonment of the methodology of the fuqahaa' in clarifying the views of their imams. Their situation is as ibn Taymiyyah described in Majmoo' al-Fatawa 20/184-185:
Chapter: The Deviants Among the Followers of the Imams in Foundations and Branches; The deviants among the followers of the imams in foundations and branches, like some of the Khuraasaanis from the people of Jeelaan and others who affiliate with Ahmad and others, have various types of deviations...
Until he said about the fifth type of their deviation:
The fifth type is to make his words general or unrestricted while it is not so. Then, there might be some excuse for them due to some general or unrestricted wording in his speech, like his general takfeer of the Jahmiyyah, but it is conditional with conditions that were absent in those he showed mercy to among those who tested him, and they are the heads of the Jahmiyyah.
And to prevent the follower influenced by them from hastily delving into Allah's Deen without knowledge—this is a serious matter—thinking, as they were taught, that this is something unique to ibn Taymiyyah and that he deviated in it and that no one agrees with him, I present the following statements from the Salaf to hopefully guide them back to the right path:
Imam ibn Abi 'Aasim (may Allah have mercy on him) (narrated from Abu Haatim ar-Raazi, al-Bukhaari, and Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, died 287 AH) in the conclusion of his book as-Sunnah (p. 631) while explaining the foundations of the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah, said: "Among what the scholars have agreed upon as part of the Sunnah is..." and he mentioned, "The Qur'an is the Speech of Allah, blessed and exalted, and Allah spoke it, and it is not created. Whoever says it is created from those upon whom the proof has been established is a kaafir in Allah the Great." He narrated the consensus that declaring specified takfeer on those who say the Qur'an is created is conditional upon the proof being established against them. Consensus is one of the evidences and a binding proof that resolves disputes, and its implication is that takfeer does not apply to a specific individual upon whom the proof has not been established.
Imam ash-Shaafi'ee (may Allah have mercy on him) (died 204 AH) said: "Allah, the Exalted, has Names and Attributes that have come in His Book and His Prophet informed His Ummah about them. No one from Allah’s creation who has had the proof established against him is allowed to reject them, because the Qur'an was revealed with them and it is authentically reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he said them. Whoever opposes this after the proof has been established against him is a kaafir. As for before the proof reaches him, he is excused due to ignorance, because knowing this is not attained by reason or reflection or the heart. We do not declare anyone a disbeliever due to ignorance until the news has reached him about it..." Ibnul-Qayyim narrated this in "al-Jawaab al-Kaafee" (p. 82) from the narration of ibn Abi Haatim.
The necessary implication of those who disagree is that they would declare specified takfeer (تكفيرهم على التعيين) even if the proof had not reached them through revelation, claiming that the proof of reason suffices!!
It was said to imam Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Sallaam (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 224 AH): "O Abu 'Ubayd, what do you say about one who says the Qur'an is created?" He replied: "This is a man who is to be taught and told that this is kufr. If he retracts, fine; otherwise, his neck should be struck." This was narrated by al-Laalikaa'i in "Sharh Usool I'tiqad Ahl as-Sunnah" (2/321). Thus, he did not mandate the execution before educating the person, and education is different from demanding repentance. He also said in his book "al-Eemaan" about the Jahmi: "He is considered to have departed from Ahlul-Milal al-Haneefiyyah due to his opposition to the Words of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) through denial and rejection."
This only applies to those among whom the proof has been established. If the proof of revelation has not reached someone, how can they be opposing it through denial and rejection?!
Ibnul-Qayyim mentioned in I'laam al-Muwaqqi'een: "Al-Maymooni said: I heard Abu 'Abdullah saying: 'Those whom I fear for in terms of kufr – such as the Raafidhah and the Jahmiyyah – their testimony is not accepted, and they have no honor. I ask them to repent.'" (1/463). If imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) believed that all of them were disbelievers on an individual basis, why would he say he only feared kufr for them?!!
Imam 'Awn ibn Yoosuf al-Khazaa'ee (may Allah have mercy on him (one of the imams of Ahlus-Sunnah in Ifreeqiyah, who heard from ibn Wahb, the companion of imam Maalik, and met forty of ibn Wahb's teachers, d. 239 AH, and Suhnoon led his funeral prayer), was approached by three men who informed him that a man who believed in the creation of the Qur'an had died among them. He replied: "If you find someone who can take care of him for you, do not approach him." They remained silent and then asked him again for the third time. He responded similarly. They said: "We cannot find anyone." He then said: "Go and bury him for the sake of Tawheed." (Tarteeb al-Madaarik by al-Qaadhi 'Iyaadh 4/91).
Imam Abu Mansoor al-Azhari al-Harawi (the author of "Tahdheeb al-Lughah," who heard from ibn Abi Daawud, d. 370 AH) was asked about someone who says the Qur'an is created: "Do you call him a kaafir?" He replied: "What he says is kufr." The question was repeated to him three times, and he answered the same each time. Then he finally said: "A Muslim may say something that is kufr." This was reported by ibn al-Atheer in "an-Nihaayah" (4/186) and by ibn Mandhoor in "Lisaan al-'Arab" (entry 53898). The statements of al-Khazaa'ee and al-Azhari imply that the rulings of takfeer are not to be applied to individuals unrestrictedly, without restriction or precept.
The dissenter in this matter, from the Haddaadiyyah and those who follow their stance in these issues, misunderstood the general terms in the sayings of the Salaf, such as: "The Jahmiyyah are disbelievers" (where the definite article implies generality) and their statement: "Whoever says the Qur’an is created is a kaafir" (where "whoever" is a relative pronoun that implies generality). They assume these statements apply to every individual regardless of their situation, whether the prophetic proof has reached them and they had the ability to learn it or not, except for the one who is coerced. This understanding is not aligned with the principles of knowledge held by the Salaf regarding the implications of general statements. Rather, it follows the method of the majority of the Mutakallimeen of the Usool (متكلمة الأصوليين), as ibn Taymiyyah pointed out in various places in Majmoo' al-Fatawa and Minhaaj as-Sunnah. He explained that generality does not imply unrestricted application in every circumstance and it is unrestricted in this context, and from it came what he established regarding divine promise and threat, takfeer, cursing, and tafseeq, by distinguishing between the unrestricted ruling and the specific ruling, clarifying that a ruling does not apply to a specific individual unless the conditions are met and the impediments are absent. He mentioned that the view that generality necessitates universal application in all situations is contrary to the stance of the Salaf, and it has no basis in the Arabic language. I have elaborated on this with Allah's grace in the book Kashf al-Iltibaas.
And among what ibn Taymiyyah said on this matter (12/466 and 487):
In reality, they were afflicted by the general terms in the words of the Imams just as the earlier people were afflicted by the general terms in the texts of the legislator. Whenever they heard them say, 'Whoever says such and such is a disbeliever,' the listener would think that this term includes everyone who says it...
This is explained by what he said before in the same fatwa known as the Keelaaniyyah:
As for declaring takfeer the speaker of this statement, it is based on a principle that must be noted; for the lack of understanding of this principle has caused the Ummah to fall into significant confusion in declaring takfeer on people of innovations and whims, as they were confused in the past and present about stripping faith from the people of al-fujoor and al-kabaa'ir.
That is, what afflicted them in the general terms in the words of the imams when declaring takfeer on the followers of innovation of disbelief (أصحاب البدع الكفرية) was confusion. And those who were afflicted by this confusion were not the imams themselves, but rather their followers after them. He considered this type of confusion similar to what happened to the Wa'eediyyah and the Murji'ah regarding the general terms in the texts of revelation about the divine threats to the perpetrators of major sins that do not reach the level of kufr. This is because both the texts of revelation concerning threats and the texts of the imams concerning takfeer mostly appear in general terms.
This is one aspect of the source of error among these people. As for the second aspect:
It can be understood from the statement of imam ash-Shaafi'ee that it should be said that whoever declares specified takfeer on individuals before the proof has been established against them must adhere to the position of declaring them disbelievers based on the establishment of rational proof against them. There is no third possibility. Among the Haddaadiyyah, some adhere to this and affirm it, following those who erred in this regard among the followers of the imams of Ahlus-Sunnah. In reality, this is the view of the Mu'tazilah, who declared as disbelievers those who disagreed with them on the principles of Kalaamiyyah they established concerning what they call Tawheed and justice. They based this on two principles:
The first principle: The obligation of engaging in Kalaam to know the Creator and what attributes are due to Him. They declared as disbelievers those who erred in this and those who were ignorant of it. In this, the majority of the Ashaa'irah agreed with them in takfeer.
The second principle: The assertion of rational good and evil in an extreme manner. This principle pertains to specific issues as documented in their books. They based upon it the accountability of obligation and prohibition, and the unrestricted application of names to individuals based on rational proof, and the imposition of punitive rulings on the dissenter before the arrival of auditory evidence, i.e., the revelation.
And perhaps imam ash-Shaafi'ee intended to refute them with his statement. Some scholars have erred and agreed with a part of their view, such as imam Abu Haneefah — as has been authentically reported from him — and imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari in his book "التبصير في معالم الدين" and other followers of the imams of the Salaf.
Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him and forgive him) pointed out the Kalaamiyyah roots of this statement when he said:
Is a person considered a believer if he believes in Islam without seeking proof, or is he not considered a Muslim unless he seeks proof?
(Abu Muhammad said:) Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari and all of the Ash'ariyyah, except for as-Sam’aani, held that one is not considered a Muslim unless he seeks proof. Otherwise, he is not a Muslim. At-Tabari said: "Anyone who reaches puberty or awareness, whether male or female, or a woman who starts menstruating and does not know Allah the Almighty by all His Names and Attributes through the way of reasoning is a kaafir whose blood and wealth are lawful." He also said: "When a boy or a girl reaches seven years old, it is obligatory to teach them and train them to reason about this." The Ash'ariyyah said: "They are not required to seek proof of this until after reaching puberty."
(Abu Muhammad said:) The rest of the Muslims say that anyone who believes in his heart without doubting it, says with his tongue, "There is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," and believes that everything he brought is true, and disavows any religion other than the Deen of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then he is a Muslim Mu'min. Nothing more is required of him.
And his statement was quoted by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) who endorsed it and commented on it, saying [in Dar' at-Ta'aarud al-'Aql wan-Naql 7:406-407]:
The first view is originally known to be held by the Qadariyyah and the Mu'tazilah, and other similar groups among the Ahlul-Kalaam. Some Ash'ariyyah later adopted this view in agreement with them. This is why Abu Ja'far as-Samnaani said, "The claim of the necessity of rational inquiry is a remnant of the Mu'tazilah's views." Those who mandate rational inquiry argue that necessary knowledge cannot be attained except through such inquiry, especially the Qadariyyah, who deny that people can be rewarded for the necessary knowledge created within them. However, not all Ash'ariyyah agree on the necessity of rational inquiry, as they have differing views on this matter.
In this context, the term "Qadariyyah" refers to the Mu'tazilah.
And ibn Taymiyyah also said in Majmoo' al-Fatawa 8/90:
And from this discourse arose a dispute between the Mu'tazilah and others who agreed with them on the "issue of rational moral judgment (at-tahseen wa al-taqbeeh al-'aqlee)" whereby the Mu'tazilah, others, and those who agreed with them among the followers of Abu Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee, Ahmad, and the Ahlul-Hadith confirmed it.
The reason for this agreement is explained in another passage where it is stated [in Dar' at-Ta'aarud al-'Aql wan-Naql 8:492-494]:
A group says: Rather, actions are characterized by good and bad qualities, and this can be known by reason and deserving of punishment by reason, even if there is no revealed text, as the Mu'tazilah say, and those who agree with them among the followers of Abu Haneefah and others, like Abu al-Khattaab and others.
Abu al-Khattaab here refers to al-Khallaal al-Hanbali.
Imam Abu Nasr as-Sijzi (also known as shaykhus-Sunnah, died 444 AH), narrated in his treatise "Refutation of Those Who Deny the Letter and Sound" the consensus of the Salaf that proof is based solely on revelation, with no role for reason in this matter. This principle applies not only to divine threat but also to accountability, as divine promise and threat are contingent upon accountability. As-Sijzi stated:
... Establishing the proof that the decisive evidence is that which comes through revelation alone, and that reason is merely a tool for discernment: Allah Almighty said to His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ مِثْلُكُمْ يُوحَى إِلَيَّ أَنَّمَا إِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ
Say, "I am only a man like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God..." (Al-Kahf 18:110)
Thus, He commanded His Prophet (peace be upon him) to call for the affirmation of Tawheed through revelation. And He said:
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ مِنْ رَسُولٍ إِلَّا نُوحِي إِلَيْهِ أَنَّهُ لا إِلَهَ إِلاَّ أَنَا فَاعْبُدُونِ
And We sent not before you any messenger except We revealed to him that, "There is no deity except Me, so worship Me." (Al-Anbiyaa' 21:25)
This clarifies that the messengers who came before used revelation to argue for Tawheed against kuffaar, and they were commanded to do nothing else...
The Salaf agreed that knowing Allah through reason is possible but not obligatory, and that the obligation comes from revelation because the warning is associated with it. Almighty said:
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولاًً
... And never would We punish until We sent a messenger. (Al-Israa' 17:15)
So, knowing that reason exists before the message is sent, and that punishment is withheld from its people, and seeing that those who oppose the messengers and texts deserve punishment, we clarified that the proof is what comes through revelation alone. We also agreed that if a man said: "Reason is not an inherent proof but is used to recognize the proof," he would neither be a kaafir nor a sinner. However, if a man said: "The Book of Allah Almighty is not a proof upon us by itself," he would be a kaafir whose blood is permissible.
Thus, we are certain that the decisive proof is what comes through revelation alone...
Moreover, al-Ash'ari claims that reason does not inherently necessitate good or bad. This, truly, is a contradiction of reason itself, and the explanation of this will come in another section, by the Will of Allah...
And imam al-Laalikaa'i (d. 418 AH) (may Allah have mercy on him) said in "Explanation of the Foundations of the Belief of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah from the Book and the Sunnah and the Consensus of the Companions and the Followers after them":
Evidence from the Book of Allah and what is narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) indicating that the obligation to know Allah, Exalted and Glorified, and His attributes comes from divine revelation (As-Sam') and not from reason ('Aql):
Allah, the Exalted, addressed His Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, with specific wording, which is intended to be general:
فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ
"So know, [O Muhammad], that there is no deity except Allah..." (Muhammad 47:19)
And He, Blessed and Exalted, said:
اتَّبِعْ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكِ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ
"Follow what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) from your Lord, Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He) and turn aside from Al-Mushrikûn" (Al-An'aam 6:106)
And He, Blessed and Exalted, said:
And We sent not before you any messenger except We revealed to him that, "There is no deity except Me, so worship Me." (Al-Anbiyaa' 21:25)
Thus, Allah informed His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in this Ayah that the prophets before him knew Tawheed through divine revelation.
The Exalted said:
قُلْ إِنْ ضَلَلْتُ فَإِنَّمَا أَضِلُّ عَلَى نَفْسِي وَإِنِ اهْتَدَيْتُ فَبِمَا يُوحِي إِلَيَّ رَبِّي إِنَّهُ سَمِيعٌ قَرِيبٌ
Say, "If I should err, I would only err against myself. But if I am guided, it is by what my Lord reveals to me. Indeed, He is Hearing and near." (Saba' 34:50)
Ibraaheem used his perfected actions to argue for Tawheed through the rising and setting of the sun, the appearance and disappearance of the moon, and the appearance and eclipse of the stars, then he said:
لَئِنْ لَمْ يَهْدِنِي رَبِّي لَأَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الضَّالِّينَ
... "Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people gone astray." (Al-An'aam 6:77)
This indicates that guidance occurs through divine revelation.
The obligation to know the messengers also comes through divine revelation. Allah, Blessed and Exalted, said:
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا الَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ الْأُمِّيِّ الَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ وَاتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ
Say, [O Muḥammad], "O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allāh to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death." So believe in Allāh and His Messenger, the unlettered prophet, who believes in Allāh and His words, and follow him that you may be guided. (Al-A'raaf 7:158)
And He said:
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولاًً
... And never would We punish until We sent a messenger. (Al-Israa' 17:15)
And He, Blessed and Exalted, said:
لِئَلَّا يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى اللَّهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ
"... in order that mankind should have no plea against Allâh after the (coming of) Messengers. And Allâh is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise." (An-Nisaa' 4:165)
And He, Blessed and Exalted, said:
وَمَا كُنْتَ بِجَانِبِ الْغَرْبِيِّ إِذْ قَضَيْنَا إِلَى مُوسَى الْأَمْرَ وَمَا كُنْتَ مِنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ , وَلَكِنَّا أَنْشَأْنَا قُرُونًا فَتَطَاوَلَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْعُمُرُ وَمَا كُنْتَ ثَاوِيًا فِي أَهْلِ مَدْيَنَ تَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِنَا وَلَكِنَّا كُنَّا مُرْسِلِينَ , وَمَا كُنْتَ بِجَانِبِ الطُّورِ إِذْ نَادَيْنَا وَلَكِنْ رَحْمَةً مِنْ رَبِّكِ لِتُنْذِرَ قَوْمًا مَا أَتَاهُمْ مِنْ نَذِيرٍ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ. وَلَوْلَا أَنْ تُصِيبَهُمْ مُصِيبَةٌ بِمَا قَدَّمَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُوا رَبَّنَا لَوْلَا أَرْسَلْتَ إِلَيْنَا رَسُولًا فَنَتَّبِعَ آيَاتِكَ وَنَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ
And you, [O Muḥammad], were not on the western side [of the mount] when We revealed to Moses the command, and you were not among the witnesses [to that]. But We produced [many] generations [after Moses], and prolonged was their duration. And you were not a resident among the people of Madyan, reciting to them Our verses, but We were senders [of this message]. And you were not at the side of the mount when We called [Moses] but [were sent] as a mercy from your Lord to warn a people to whom no warner had come before you that they might be reminded. (Al-Qasas 28:44-46)
وَقَالُوا لَوْلَا يَأْتِينَا بِآيَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّهِ أَوَلَمْ تَأْتِهِمْ بَيِّنَةُ مَا فِي الصُّحُفِ الْأُولَى وَلَوْ أَنَّا أَهْلَكْنَاهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ لَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا لَوْلَا أَرْسَلْتَ إِلَيْنَا رَسُولًا فَنَتَّبِعَ آيَاتِكَ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ نَذِلَّ وَنَخْزَى
And they say, "Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?" Has there not come to them evidence of what was in the former scriptures? And if We had destroyed them with a punishment before him,1 they would have said, "Our Lord, why did You not send to us a messenger so we could have followed Your verses [i.e., teachings] before we were humiliated and disgraced?" (TaHa 20:133-134)
This demonstrates that knowledge of Allah and the messengers comes through divine revelation, as Allah Almighty informed. This is the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah.
Abu Ismaa'eel al-Ansaari al-Harawi (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 481 AH), said in his book "The Belief of Ahlus-Sunnah and the Consensus of the People of Truth in the Ummah":
"The first duty upon the servant is to know Allah, based on the hadith of Mu'aadh when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to him: 'You will be going to a people of the Book, so let the first thing you call them to be the worship of Allah. If they acknowledge Allah, then inform them that Allah has obligated upon them...' This hadith was narrated by Muslim in this manner and also by al-Bukhaari. Therefore, know that knowing Allah, worshiping Him, and believing in Him only becomes obligatory and is heard and required upon reaching puberty, and it is attained through education." End quote. This was cited by ibn Taymiyyah in one of his annotations [see: Majmoo' al-Fatawa, 2/3, footnote].
And they did not differentiate in this regard between the matter of Attributes and the matter of Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah, so take heed.
And what also testifies that unrestricted takfeer does not necessitate declaring specified takfeer except with its conditions is the stance of the imams of the Salaf. If we refer to their stance on the Qadariyyah, who claimed that a slave [of Allah], through his disobedience, creates his own actions and that these actions do not occur by the will of Allah, we find many of them describing the Qadariyyah's statement as shirk and kufr, and they declared some of their individuals to be disbelievers. Ibn Battah al-Akbari mentioned in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra narrations about this from Maalik, Hammaad ibn Zayd, Hammaad ibn Salamah, and others. Conversely, we find narrations reported by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi in al-Kifaayah fee 'Ilm al-Riwaayah which clarify that their ruling of kufr and shirk upon them is not general and unrestricted. This is detailed under two consecutive chapters, where he (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"And what we rely upon in permitting the use of their reports is the well-known acceptance by the Companions of the reports and testimonies of the Khawaarij and those similar to them among the sinful due to their interpretations. This practice was continued by the Taabi'oon and those who followed them, seeing their commitment to truthfulness, their abhorrence of lying, and their safeguarding themselves from prohibited actions. They denounced people of suspicion and blameworthy ways, narrated ahaadeeth that contradicted their own opinions, and allowed their opponents to use these narrations as evidence against them..." And he began listing the names of narrators from various sects of the people of innovation, including the Khawaarij, Murji'ah, Shee'ah, and others. The key point is his statement: "... And among those who adhered to Qadar and Tashayyu' were... ibn Abi Najeeh, who was a Mu'tazili, and 'Abdul-Waarith ibn Sa'eed, Shibl ibn 'Abbaad, Sayf ibn Sulayman, Hishaam ad-Dastuwaa'i, Sa'eed ibn Abi 'Aroobah, and Sallaam ibn Miskeen, and they were Qadariyyah..." Until he said: "Among a large number of people whose mention would be extensive, the scholars of old and recent times have recorded their narrations and relied on their reports. This has become almost a consensus among them, which is one of the strongest proofs in this matter, thereby strengthening the likelihood of correctness."
And he also said in "Chapter: Mentioning some of what has been transmitted from the imams of the hadith scholars regarding the permissibility of narrating from people of desires and innovations. We have already narrated from Abu 'Abdullah ash-Shaafi'ee about the permissibility of accepting the testimony of people of desires, except for a specific group among the Raafidhah. Similar statements are attributed to Abu Haneefah, the imam of the opinion holders, and to Qaadhi Abu Yoosuf." (He meant what he mentioned in the previous chapter, saying: "A group of scholars accepted the reports from people of desires, as long as they are not known to consider lying permissible or to testify in favor of those who agree with them without having actual evidence. Among the fuqahaa' who held this view is Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idrees ash-Shaafi'ee, who said: 'The testimony of people of desires is accepted, except for the Khattaabiyyah from the Raafidhah because they believe in giving false testimony for their supporters.' He mentioned that this is also the view of ibn Abi Layla and Sufyan ath-Thawri, and similar reports are attributed to Qaadhi Abu Yoosuf.") Then he mentioned many reports with his chain of narration. The most significant among them is what he narrated from 'Ali ibn al-Madini, may Allah have mercy on him, who said: "If I were to abandon the people of Basrah because of their belief in al-Qadar, and if I were to abandon the people of Koofah because of that opinion, meaning at-Tashayyu', the books would be ruined." By his statement "the books would be ruined," he meant that the hadith would disappear. The narration of transmitters from the Qadariyyah is found in as-Saheehayn (al-Bukhaari and Muslim) and others.
And it is known that ash-Shaafi'ee's acceptance of the testimony of the people of desires except for the Raafidhah indicates their Islam according to him, as mentioned by ibnul-Qayyim in "at-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah" in the seventy-eighth chapter.
There is consensus among the hadith scholars on the requirement of Islam for accepting the narrator's narration, as as-Suyooti mentioned in "Tadreeb ar-Raawee," and many of the scholars of principles of jurisprudence mentioned in their books. The agreement of the hadith scholars is a proof, as Abu Haatim ar-Raazi said, in the hadith discipline.
Know that saying that unrestricted takfeer does not necessitate declaring specified takfeer except for those who meet the conditions and from whom the preventions are absent is not a closure of the door to takfeer of those involved in kufr innovations. Only an ignorant person would claim this. The Salaf declared specified takfeer on individuals from the Jahmiyyah and the Qadariyyah. This is understood as them considering that the proof had reached such individuals. This is more so in the case of the Jahmiyyah than the Qadariyyah. Hence, you do not find a single narration from a Jahmi, unlike the numerous narrations from the Qadariyyah. This might be due to the weaker argument of the Jahmiyyah compared to the Qadariyyah. As for ibn Taymiyyah's contention regarding the requirement of clarification in addition to the statement for declaring specified takfeer on the Jahmiyyah and attributing this to the Salaf, it has a basis in knowledge. Allah knows best.
And know that one of the greatest mistakes of the Haddaadiyyah is their claim to follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf without clearly defining the limits of that understanding. If anyone disagrees with them in understanding the Salaf, they are unable to explain the correctness of their understanding. They are only good at transmitting without clarifying the correctness of their understanding from the perspective of principles, and without distinguishing between what is explicit from the words of the Salaf (what is termed as "text" or "apparent" by the principles of jurisprudence scholars from the time of imam ash-Shaafi'ee) and what is not explicit. This is due to their lack of proper attention to the principles of jurisprudence. Therefore, you often find them making what is not explicit into something explicit. Worse still, they equate their understanding with the understanding of the Salaf. This stems from their limited knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, particularly its greatest branches: linguistic indications [or semantics] ("دلالات الألفاظ"). They have neither refined the intended understanding of the Salaf in light of the rules of the principles of jurisprudence, to refer to them in case of disagreement about what the Salaf understood, nor have they paid attention to the ranks of linguistic indications to distinguish what is explicit from what is not. Hence, they dare to reject some of ibn Taymiyyah's explanations without substantial evidence, relying only on apparent meanings that have counterarguments. This is evident in our current issue.
Know that understanding of the Salaf according to the rules, principles of jurisprudence and knowledge is based on four key aspects:
Consensus (Ijma'): Whose authority was emphasized by 'Umar and ibn Mas'ood (may Allah be pleased with them).
Matters where there is no known disagreement: Which the imams of the Salaf used as evidence. In such cases, they would often not mention any other proof, as seen with Maalik, Al-Awzaa'ee, ash-Shaafi'ee, and Ahmad.
The statement of a companion which is not opposed by any other companion: Which ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani in his book "adh-Dhabb 'an Madhaahib Maalik" mentioned as an agreed-upon proof by the Salaf.
Not departing from their views if they differ: By introducing a new opinion. This restriction was mentioned by several scholars, including Sa'eed ibn al-Musayyib, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Haatim ar-Raazi, ibn Wadaah, ibn 'Abdul-Barr, and al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani in "al-Jaami'" stated the consensus of Ahlus-Sunnah on this matter. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said, "Whoever claims to go outside their opinions when they differ, it necessitates going outside their opinions when they agree."
The statement of a single individual after the Sahaabah, from the Taabi'een and those after them, is not considered a binding proof. When the Ahnaaf attributed the use of Taabi'een statements as proof to imam Ahmad, ibn Muflih denied that any of the prominent imams held this view. Instead, these statements are used for reinforcement and corroboration, not as primary evidence, as noted by ibn Taymiyyah.
One of the most significant yet often overlooked aspects of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah's work in defending the belief of the Salaf is his connection between the foundations of their creed and the principles of their jurisprudence. He did this both in his affirmations and in his refutations of opposing views. He illustrated the fallacies in the arguments of the innovators in both fields: principles of jurisprudence and foundations of the Deen, and highlighted the influence each has on the other. The integration of these two foundational sciences was something heavily emphasized by the Mutakallimeen of the Mu'tazilah, Ashaa'irah, and Maaturidiyyah. Unfortunately, many later scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah fell short in this integration, and some, when authoring works on the principles of jurisprudence, inadvertently incorporated the views of the Mutakallimeen without realizing it. This issue persists among many contemporary scholars who fail to pay attention to the origins and historical development of these views. This is especially common in the finer details of various issues. They have not followed the methodology of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah reward him abundantly.
May Allah grant us the ability to see the truth as truth and follow it, and see falsehood as falsehood and avoid it, and may He make us die in a state of Islam and Sunnah.
Return to the main page