There are numerous factors and reasons that have led parts of the Ummah into misguidance. While Allah, in His infinite mercy, protects His sincere slaves and forgives their shortcomings, sincerity itself plays a crucial role in attaining success—especially when coupled with action. We recognize that knowledge and understanding are key factors in staying on the right path. However, what often confuses laypeople is the use of terms such as "the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah," "The Saved Sect," and similar expressions that scholars have employed to describe the people of Sunnah—those who adhere to the straight path.
Today, a growing issue is the rise of misguided sects and individuals who falsely claim to be part of Ahlus-Sunnah. Social media has further amplified their voices, making it increasingly difficult for the average Muslim to discern truth from falsehood. However, the Seerah and the biographies of the Sahaabah provide invaluable lessons that help navigate trials—especially in distinguishing between truth and misguidance. While it is well known that doubts and desires lead people astray, the remedy lies in knowledge and sincerity.
A major challenge arises from the rhetoric of Ahlul-Kalaam, who often present themselves as intellectual and persuasive. Many laypeople, lacking knowledge, are misled into believing that these individuals belong to Ahlus-Sunnah. Their arguments, simplified into easily repeated sound bites, create widespread misconceptions regarding who truly adheres to the Sunnah. This has led to the mistaken notion that terms like "Athari", which is now often replaced by "Salafi", are interchangeable with Ahlus-Sunnah—or worse, that Ahlus-Sunnah itself is merely a broad categorization that includes Ash’ariyyah and Maaturidiyyah under the same umbrella of “rightly guided” groups.
With the help of Allah, I will provide scholarly references that clarify these distinctions and set apart the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah from those of misguided sects. It is important to move beyond superficial affiliations and realize that the common regurgitation of terms like "Athari" inadvertently reinforces the categorization imposed by Ahlul-Kalaam—falsely segmenting Ahlus-Sunnah into three. The truth, however, remains distinct, and with proper understanding, we can uphold the authentic creed of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah without distortion.
I've already expressed this in various ways, but the primary point remains: what it means to be on the straight path, and how those on it are described, has always been consistent. They are Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. This is a key distinguishing factor that hasn't changed, yet unfortunately, many laypeople today seem to have lost sight of it. A major influence here comes from the rhetoric of the Madkhaliyyah sect, which initially sought to call people back to the concept of tawheed—an undoubtedly noble goal. But the manner in which they talk about it contains underlying issues, which have affected how laypeople understand and approach this matter.
It’s important to note that the term "Salafi" initially came about to distinguish those from the Mutakallimeen (like the Ashaa’irah and Maaturidiyyah). This label was never meant to separate it from Ahlus-Sunnah, but rather to clarify their stance. Respectable scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah used it contextually, highlighting the virtues of the righteous predecessors, the Salaf, and explaining their adherence to the principles of the faith. The intent was to show how the Salaf upheld these principles in contrast to the people of innovation, who deviated from the straight path of Ahlus-Sunnah. Unfortunately, the term "Salafi" has become so widely misused and abused, particularly online, that its meaning has been muddied, whether used with good or bad intentions.
As a result, some began to adopt the term "Athari," hoping to avoid the issues associated with "Salafi." However, even this term suffers from the same underlying ideological confusion, despite its praiseworthy usage in some contexts. Both laypeople and Mutakallimeen have used "Athari," often in a blameworthy manner, without fully understanding its implications. To many, "Athari" becomes just another synonym for "Salafi," though some laypeople use it in an attempt to distance themselves from the Mutakallimeen, while the Mutakallimeen use it to refer to the broader Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. Once again, the Mutakallimeen falsely categorized Ahlus-Sunnah into three groups: Athariyyah, Ash'ariyyah, and Maaturidiyyah.
In all of this, what has been abandoned, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is the identity of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. This is the label that truly describes those on the straight path. Though "Sunni" is often used as a shorthand, this term has been so distorted by the ignorant that it’s sometimes wrongly associated with the misguided, when in fact those who deviate from the straight path no longer have the right to claim it.
That's why it cannot be emphasized enough: using empty labels like "Salafi" or, even worse, "Athari," will indirectly and implicitly validate the false categorization of Ahlus-Sunnah into three groups, as claimed by the Mutakallimeen. This is the ramification of abandoning the primary, foundational distinction of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah.
Ultimately, what separates those who are truly part of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah has to do with their foundations. And when we speak of foundations, we are primarily referring to the pillars of eemaan—beliefs and practices that are rooted in the Qur'an and Sunnah, as understood by the Salaf. This is the essence of what it means to be part of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah.
There is, however, a crucial distinction when we say “Qur’an and Sunnah by the understanding of the Salaf.” As previously explained, the intent and context behind this phrase are vastly different depending on who’s using it, and unfortunately, many people reduce it to little more than a slogan—an empty phrase with no depth or true understanding behind it. For some, it’s merely a catchy phrase; for others, they may say it without realizing the weight and depth it carries. This is where knowledge, particularly in the field of usool al-fiqh, plays a significant role.
The lack of knowledge in usool al-fiqh can have serious ramifications, just as much as the lack of understanding the Arabic language. This is what distinguishes a true student of knowledge and someone pretending to be one. Again, usool al-fiqh is part of the auxiliary sciences, meaning it provides essential tools that facilitate further understanding into the objective sciences. Without this foundation, you may miss the essential framework necessary to properly understand and correctly apply the objective sciences.
To further explain, usool al-fiqh is part of the auxiliary sciences. It provides the essential tools needed to understand and engage with the objective sciences of Shari’ah. These are the sciences that directly pertain to 'aqeedah and fiqh. Think of it this way: an architect and a construction worker both contribute to the building of a house, but their roles are distinct. The architect has the comprehensive understanding of how the building should be designed—what materials to use, how strong it should be, and so on—while the construction workers follow the architect’s plans. The architect’s role is broader and more foundational, while the workers execute the design.
Though this example may fall short in some ways, the underlying principle is clear: usool al-fiqh is not just about learning jurisprudential principles; it provides a framework for understanding other core sciences of the Shari'ah, including 'aqeedah. Without a proper foundation in usool al-fiqh, a person can easily misinterpret or mishandle the more intricate and foundational aspects of Islam. So, understanding these sciences isn’t just a matter of memorizing terms; it’s about building a structured comprehension of our faith.
Let’s now explore what the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah have stated in their works, considering these books as primary sources for understanding the beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah. There is a vast number of early texts that are considered foundational when it comes to the 'aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah, serving as essential references in this regard:
Imam al-Asbahaani (d. 369 AH) said in al-Hujjah fee Bayaan al-Mahajjah: "As for the people of truth, they placed the Book and the Sunnah before them, seeking the Deen from them. Whatever they encounter in their reasoning and thoughts, they compare it to the Book and the Sunnah. If they find it in agreement with them, they accept it and thank Allah for guiding them to it and granting them success in it. If they find it contrary to them, they reject what came to them and turn to the Book and the Sunnah, attributing any doubt to themselves."
Imam al-Laalikaa'i (d. 418 AH) said in Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah: "The most important thing for a person is to know the correct belief of the Deen, and what Allah has commanded His slaves to understand of His Tawheed and His Attributes, to believe in His Messengers with evidence and certainty, and to reach its paths and establish evidence for it through proofs and clear demonstrations. The most significant and clear proof of this is the Book of Allah, the clear truth, followed by the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his righteous, pious Companions, and then what the righteous predecessors (Salaf) unanimously agreed upon."
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said in Minhaaj as-Sunnah: "The creed of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is long-established, before [Allah's] creation [i.e., existing before the birth] of Abu Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafi’ee, and Ahmad. It is the creed of the Companions who received it from their Prophet. Whoever opposes this creed is considered an innovator (mubtadi') by Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, for they are unanimous in the view that the consensus of the Companions is a binding proof, though there is disagreement regarding the consensus of those who came after them."
Relevant:
However, there are some seriously mistaken views among certain Ahlus-Sunnah scholars, where they’ve tried to adopt a more diplomatic stance in defining who could be considered part of Ahlus-Sunnah, especially in contrast to the Shee'ah. This is a rather odd and unfortunate perspective that lacks real substance. Particularly when they go into detail explaining that Ahlul-Kalaam are from the misguided sects, yet still attempt to categorize them in general terms as part of Ahlus-Sunnah when compared to the Shee'ah. Such a broad and superficial distinction doesn’t hold up. To claim that Ahlul-Kalaam can be included under Ahlus-Sunnah in this context is, at best, a shallow argument.
Apart from that, Ahlus-Sunnah and Ahlul-Kalaam have very distinct sources when it comes to 'aqeedah. While Ahlul-Kalaam may claim their sources are the Qur'an and Sunnah, they lack a true understanding, often opposing the understandings of the Salaf, particularly in how they interpret those sources. They rely on 'Ilm al-Kalaam to extract conclusions from the Qur'an and Sunnah, which, as previously highlighted, has led to a misguided approach to understanding Allah—especially regarding His Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes. This isn’t limited to just these issues but extends to countless foundational aspects of our faith, including the very concept of eemaan. So, it becomes contradictory to make broad claims while simultaneously asserting in detail that they belong to the misguided sects. For this reason, such diplomatic explanations should be avoided to prevent further misconceptions and confusion.
That’s why you’ll often hear from those who’ve never truly studied the foundational texts of Ahlus-Sunnah or learned from its scholars—people who have either been influenced by Ahlul-Kalaam or are themselves part of it. When they describe 'aqeedah or explain what one learns from it, they often treat 'Ilm al-Kalaam as though it’s an integral part of it. This is evident in the views of figures like Daniel Haqiqatjou and Muhammad Hijab. However, it’s worth noting that brother Hijab, at least seemingly, has had some kind of realization about his fitrah, recognizing that 'Ilm al-Kalaam does not increase his eemaan. It's telling that, despite this, he still holds certain misconceptions about what 'aqeedah truly is, which is why he’s now focusing more on the Qur'an as the means to increase his eemaan. Even stranger is the fact that Ahlul-Kalaam deny the very existence of fitrah—something that should naturally spark curiosity about their misguidance. One can’t help but wonder why, but the reality is that these individuals have learned their 'aqeedah from misguided sects while claiming to respect certain Ahlus-Sunnah scholars. It’s not surprising, though, when you consider they are products of philosophy, influenced by Orientalist scholarship, and compounded by 'Ilm al-Kalaam, all of which muddy their understanding.
I also wonder about brother Hijab’s knowledge, especially since he claims to have studied extensively and acquired various degrees. Yet, when he says that 'aqeedah doesn’t help him increase his eemaan, it raises a serious question. The issue is that the way Ahlul-Kalaam understand eemaan is fundamentally different from how Ahlus-Sunnah defines it. Ahlul-Kalaam, for instance, assert that actions are conditional for the perfection of faith, which contrasts sharply with the Ahlus-Sunnah view on eemaan.
Relevant:
Shaykh Saalih al-Munajjid (may Allah have mercy on him) provided a clear and insightful explanation on these matters:
But the people of innovation use different names for the 'aqeedah, or topics of 'aqeedah. For example, some call it "Ilm al-Kalaam", which is the term commonly used by the Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah. So, if someone says to you, "Can we call the 'aqeedah 'Ilm al-Kalaam'? We want to set a curriculum for university students in 'aqeedah and call it 'Ilm al-Kalaam'?" We would say: this naming is invalid because 'Ilm al-Kalaam' originates from speculation, and the philosophies of India and Greece, relying on opinions. But these are matters of the unseen, so how can opinion be involved? Moreover, the early generations criticized 'Ilm al-Kalaam,' so how can you name a science that was criticized by the early scholars and apply it to 'aqeedah? Tawheed is a certain, definitive science; its matter is a matter of faith, while 'Ilm al-Kalaam' is full of confusion, doubt, ignorance, and serious disagreements among the Mutakallimeen. So, where is the dust from the stars! Some universities and colleges in parts of the Muslim world call the science of 'aqeedah the "Philosophy Curriculum." Philosophy, in its beginning and end, is nonsense; calling 'aqeedah philosophy is a false designation, for it is a remnant of the Greeks, built upon illusions, fantasies, and speculative reasoning. In some curricula, they call the 'aqeedah "Sufism," referring to it as "The Science of Sufism" or "The Subject of Sufism," meaning 'aqeedah, and this is an innovation. Sometimes, even Orientalists or those who follow their path use this term, and this is the name of an innovator. How can the spiritual flights of the Sufis align with the firm 'aqeedah of the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah? Sometimes, some call it in Western universities "Theology," which is also a term used by the people of Kalaam, philosophy, and Orientalists to refer to the sciences of 'aqeedah. This is also not one of the terms used by the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah or the trustworthy Muslim scholars. And if anything is related to any deity, "Theology" would be an incorrect term for the 'aqeedah of Tawheed.
Some people with a worldly scientific inclination call the 'aqeedah "Metaphysics," or "Science of the Beyond," which is also what philosophers and Western writers, and those who follow their approach, call it.
As for us, we know the terms used by scholars for 'aqeedah, all of which are correct. We also know some of the terms used by the innovators and the Ahlud-Dunya for the word "'aqeedah," and how we should be cautious about using these terms.
(Source: مقدمة في العقيدة)
You can already see from this how students of philosophers, such as Daniel Haqiqatjou, Muhammad Hijab, and unfortunately Jake Brancatella—along with anyone else who has taken similar paths—have developed such misconstrued conceptions. For instance, Daniel refers to himself as a "Muslim Skeptic" and Jake as "the Metaphysician," terms that they justify through their involvement in 'Ilm al-Kalaam. "Skeptic" is defined as "a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief," while "metaphysician" refers to "a student of or specialist in metaphysics," the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. These labels alone are deeply problematic, as they are not distancing themselves from such terms, which only serve to propagate false notions among the broader Muslim community. While Jake may seem to be steering towards Ahlus-Sunnah, he too should reject this description for himself.
To reiterate, in reference to what shaykh Saalih al-Munajjid (may Allah have mercy on him) said about "theology," I’ve also mentioned this point previously:
The use of certain terms, such as “theology” in the context of Islam, can be problematic when it is treated as an accepted concept. In Islam, the Arabic term for “theology,” [علم اللاهوت], is not adopted. Although some misguided sects might use this term, it is not recognized as valid within Islam. Even when respected students of knowledge occasionally use this term, it should be understood that it’s used very loosely, and it’s best to adhere to primary and well-established usages of terms. 'The Arabic Encyclopedia' (الموسوعة العربية) states that theology is the science of Christian doctrines, a system of religious thought exclusive to Christianity, due to its origin and formation.
(Source: The Misuse of Terms and Concepts in Islamic Contexts)
I don’t understand how these individuals, while claiming to be so meticulous, "academic," and objective, fail to even adhere to the terminologies used by Ahlus-Sunnah scholars.
I hope that from this introduction alone, along with the previous articles, it’s clear that this is a nuanced matter—one that requires a solid understanding of the basics of 'aqeedah. Without this foundational knowledge, it can be difficult to follow. This is why early scholars, as demonstrated in imam al-Bukhaari’s Saheeh, Book of Knowledge, Chapter 49, were selective in their teachings: "Chapter: Whoever selected some people to teach them (religious) knowledge, preferring them over others for fear that the others may not understand it."
This also highlights the critical need to return to the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah. This is what’s missing from many speakers online today, where it often seems as though they themselves are the ultimate sources of knowledge, claiming authority over matters of Islam. When people aren’t taught properly by scholars, they tend to emphasize issues that aren't even stressed in the Qur'an and Sunnah. This is especially true when the youth, driven by enthusiasm for new subjects they’ve just learned, start to engage in debates. Yet, there are strong warnings against such engagement, particularly for laypeople who look to figures like Zakir Naik, Daniel Haqiqatjou, Muhammad Hijab, Jake Brancatella, or anyone similarly involved in debates, whether with kuffaar or other Muslims. It's as though these debates are seen as a representation of how Muslims should engage or how the Salaf, including the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), engaged in discourse. Laypeople online often try to emulate these figures, even though they have no formal knowledge of the sciences of Shari'ah—just a few videos or a couple of books. It’s concerning that so few students of knowledge today emphasize the boundaries and frameworks of the sciences of Shari'ah—what they consist of and why certain topics are beyond their expertise. We often see graduates speaking on matters outside their field of knowledge.
As al-Haafidh ibn Hajar aptly stated: "من تكلم في غير فنه أتى بالعجائب", meaning, "Whoever speaks on matters outside of their field will bring about wonders (errors)." Some who have studied the science of hadith, for instance, attempt to speak on broader matters of Islam but fail to address them adequately. It’s disappointing to see them not consulting with scholars or students of knowledge from Ahlus-Sunnah. Sometimes, individuals I’ve privately contacted, whom I won’t name, respond in a way that is unbecoming of a Muslim, despite offering them sincere advice. This is something laypeople fail to see—that students of knowledge, and even sincere laypeople who have grasped some correct understandings of Islam, often give private advice before making public constructive criticisms. However, obstinacy and the refusal to acknowledge their lack of knowledge are often the reasons behind such public articles. Others simply fail to respond, and the reasons for this remain unclear.
What I want to highlight here is the failure of public figures online to reference contemporary scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah when addressing topics they treat as controversial or disputed. It’s as if the silence of scholars or students of knowledge on these matters is mistakenly attributed to ignorance. In reality, these scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah have acted with wisdom and justice, understanding when to speak and when to remain silent. The balanced approach of Ahlus-Sunnah ensures that criticism is given at the right time and in the appropriate context. Some matters, in fact, are concerns that belong solely between scholars, not for laypeople to engage with. However, in today’s digital age, where everything is public, this distinction is often blurred. Many pretentious students search for keywords online—such as from figures like shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab—without ever studying their works properly or consulting with Ahlus-Sunnah scholars for constructive criticism. This behavior is a clear testament to their insincerity and ignorance. As al-Hasan al-Basri said: "Indeed, these are people who have grown weary of worship, despised caution, and found speech easier for them than action." (Source)
Returning to the influence of Ahlul-Kalaam on scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, this is a point that many, unfortunately, fail to address adequately. It often seems that, while they regurgitate what they believe to be clear in their minds—"Qur'an and Sunnah by the understanding of the Salaf"—practical demonstrations show that they don’t truly grasp this concept beyond it being a mere slogan. Their failure to apply what has been employed by the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah is evident, especially when it comes to usool al-fiqh in matters of 'aqeedah. This is where both those who repeat this slogan and the proponents of Ahlul-Kalaam often share a similar approach. It's reminiscent of the commonalities between the Haddaadiyyah and Ahlul-Kalaam. Those who repeat this slogan, especially from the Haddaadiyyah sect, often end up repeating the same arguments made by Ahlul-Kalaam. It's the same concept expressed in the phrase: the general does imply generality in all situations.
They often misconstrue the statements of scholars when they make general assertions that imply an unrestricted application. For instance, when scholars say that if a person utters a statement of kufr, then they are a disbeliever, or if a person makes a statement of innovation, they are an innovator, some misunderstand this to mean that anyone can automatically be declared a disbeliever or an innovator without restriction. This has led some laypeople and beginner students of knowledge to mistakenly think that those influenced by Ahlul-Kalaam are, in fact, from Ahlul-Kalaam, which is not the case. This is particularly true within the Haddaadiyyah sect, who mistakenly label scholars like imam an-Nawawi, al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, and others as Ahlul-Kalaam. They base this erroneous reasoning on a false principle, ignorantly declaring these great scholars as innovators or even disbelievers. They don’t realize that scholars can have their foundations in place while still being influenced by 'Ilm al-Kalaam, meaning they are still part of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. Ahlus-Sunnah scholars have always emphasized that a general statement does not necessarily imply generality in all circumstances. The declaration of takfeer or tabdee' depends on specific conditions being met and impediments being absent. In reality, both takfeer and tabdee' follow the same principles.
On the contrary, since the proponents of Ahlul-Kalaam have a false understanding of general statements implying generality in all situations, they misinterpret the statements of scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah when they make general declarations of takfeer. They assume this means that everyone is being declared a disbeliever without exception, and that these statements apply universally, with no regard for the conditions and impediments that should be considered. As a result, they falsely claim that shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, along with other scholars before and after him, did not consider the excuse of ignorance in cases of shirk. Sure, there are some scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah who hold this view, but that’s a separate issue. Therefore, when people criticize certain scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, calling them Khawaarij or deviants, they misattribute misunderstandings to later scholars in relation to shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab.
However, we, the Ahlus-Sunnah, do not shy away from acknowledging that there are indeed statements of shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab that may be ambiguous or worthy of constructive criticism. But in doing so, we do not regard him as deviant or undermine his character as the innovators do. Rather, when these statements are genuinely zallaat (errors), we, as Ahlus-Sunnah, do not shy away from pointing out these mistakes, while also offering the correct understanding. The ignorant, on the other hand, will present these matters as mere "differences of opinion," making it sound as though a scholar can simply have his own opinion. This approach allows laypeople to form their own opinions, justifying the zallaat of scholars or even creating unfounded opinions.
There is a principle that states: "It is not permissible to introduce a third opinion." In line with this, al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi said:
If the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) disagreed on a matter with two opinions, and the era ended upon that, then it is not permissible for the followers (Taabi'een) to introduce a third opinion. This is because their disagreement over two opinions is a consensus on the invalidity of any other opinion besides those two, just as their agreement on one opinion is a consensus on the invalidity of any other opinion besides that one. Therefore, just as it is not permissible to introduce a second opinion in what they have unanimously agreed upon, it is also not permissible to introduce a third opinion in what they have agreed upon with two opinions.
(Source: كتاب الفقيه والمتفقه)
In regards to the belief of the Speech of Allah, the Ahlus-Sunnah were opposed in this matter by several sects, including the Kullaabiyyah, the Ash'ariyyah, and others who followed their view. They said that the Speech of Allah is an eternal meaning that exists independently, without letters or words. This is what they refer to as "the internal speech" (kalaam nafsī). Therefore, they denied that the Speech of Allah consists of letters and sounds. They believed that His Speech is a characteristic (sifah) that is inherent to Him, eternal with His eternity, and not dependent on His Will or Power. It does not occur when He wills at a specific time. The Speech of Allah, according to them, is like life and knowledge in that it exists as an inherent attribute. It is one, indivisible, and cannot be fragmented. Furthermore, the Arabic Qur'an is merely an expression of Allah's Speech, and thus, they considered it created.
In line with this principle, shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah stated:
The twenty-eighth point: If the Ummah disagrees on a matter and there are two opinions, then those who come after them are not permitted to introduce a third opinion. Therefore, if the only opinions present in the early Ummah were the opinion of the Salaf and the opinion of the Mu'tazilah, it becomes necessary to accept that the truth lies within one of these two opinions. And it is known, both by Shari'ah and by reason, that the opinion of the Mu'tazilah is false for many reasons. Among these reasons is that whoever reflects on the words of the Ahlul-Ijmaa' (the people of consensus) and what has been transmitted from the Prophets through tawaatur, will necessarily understand that when they describe Allah’s Speech, they describe it as something that He Himself speaks, not as something created by Him like the heavens, the earth, or everything in between. They (the Mu'tazilah) claim that the Speech of Allah is similar to His Names. One knows by necessity that the addition of speech and words to Allah is not the same as the addition of creation to Him. The term "qaala" (said) used by the Prophets and the believers is distinct from the term "khalaqa" (created). The invalidity of the Mu'tazilah’s view is clear in another context, and when their opinion is shown to be false, the truth of the Salaf’s position is affirmed.
(Source: كتاب التسعينية)
Abu'l-Fath ash-Shahrastaani (d. 548 AH) similarly stated:
At the beginning of time, there were two opinions: one was that the Speech of Allah is eternal (Qadeem), and the other that it is created (Hudooth). These two opinions were confined to the written words and the Ayat recited with the tongue. However, a third opinion emerged, which posits that the letters and words are created, while the speech itself is eternal. The issue was thus framed in a way that contradicted both previous opinions. The Salaf adhered to affirming the eternity and timelessness of these words, without delving into any other attributes or interpretations. The Mu'tazilah, on the other hand, affirmed the creation and temporality of the letters and sounds, without addressing any other aspects. Then, al-Ash'ari introduced a new view, declaring that the letters are created, thus breaking the consensus. He ruled that what we read is considered the Speech of Allah in a figurative sense, not in a literal one, and this was a clear innovation. Why didn't he simply state that what we read and write is indeed the Speech of Allah, without delving into the how and the essence of it, just as the texts affirm many of Allah's Attributes, such as His Face, Hands, and other descriptive attributes, without specifying their nature?
(Source: نهاية الإقدام في علم الكلام)
Relevant:
In regard to the Ahlus-Sunnah scholars influenced by Ahlul-Kalaam, such as imam an-Nawawi, al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, and others, many laypeople and beginner students of knowledge have misplaced perceptions about how to categorize these great scholars. This confusion is partly due to the influence of the Madkhaliyyah sect and more recently, the fitnah caused by the Haddaadiyyah sect. These groups, along with proponents of Ahlul-Kalaam, seem to have overlooked how Ahlus-Sunnah deals with the zallaat of scholars. It's truly perplexing that, despite the countless explanations and commentaries on imam an-Nawawi’s Forty Hadith, such as those by al-Haafidh ibn Rajab al-Hanbali and other contemporary scholars, there remains a failure to acknowledge the clarifications found in these works, especially when scholars teach students of knowledge through the works of Sharh Saheeh Muslim by imam an-Nawawi and Fath al-Baari by al-Haafidh ibn Hajar.
In my previous article, I cited what shaykh Muqbil al-Waadi'ee said on these matters, and he is not alone; countless other scholars have made similar points. The issue lies in their failure to properly understand the etiquettes of seeking knowledge and their reluctance to consult scholars or students of knowledge. It’s as though, because the zallaat of scholars were not emphasized in the same way as some of the Ahlus-Sunnah scholars have, these individuals place the blame solely on the scholars. The real issue, however, is the distortion of these matters and the lack of proper conduct in how they should be addressed.
Thus, a common thread among these groups is their deviance: a failure to refer to scholarly sources that align with Ahlus-Sunnah’s positions. Whether right or wrong, the manner in which they argue their points is often unsupported by the early and contemporary scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah. Instead, they cherry-pick statements, often taking them out of context and misinterpreting ambiguous ones. This aligns perfectly with the statement of Ayyoob as-Sakhtiyani (may Allah have mercy on him), who said: "I do not know anyone from the people of desires who disputes except with what is ambiguous." This is also reflected in the Ayah:
... فَأَمَّا ٱلَّذِينَ فِى قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌۭ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَـٰبَهَ مِنْهُ ٱبْتِغَآءَ ٱلْفِتْنَةِ وَٱبْتِغَآءَ تَأْوِيلِهِۦ ۗ ...
"... As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]..." (Aali ‘Imraan 3:7)
Ahlus-Sunnah scholars affirm that these imams are from Ahlus-Sunnah, while the Ashaa'irah claim them as part of the Ash'ariyyah, and the Haddaadiyyah claim the same, but with the intent of declaring them as innovators or even disbelievers.
As one of the mashaayikh has addressed: "There is no doubt that an-Nawawi made mistakes in interpreting a number of reports, misinterpreting them, just as others have erred. Who among us is infallible in the knowledge of Allah, Exalted is He?! According to these critics, one cannot be deemed knowledgeable about Allah unless they are infallible in understanding the divine attributes! This methodology is misguided and has become prevalent among some hadith scholars and many mutakallimeen. They claim that anyone who does not agree with them on certain issues they advocate cannot truly know Allah. Some of them even go as far as to declare those who err in such matters as disbelievers, which is a grave error. If they mean by 'knowledge' an absolute, error-free understanding, then they too should admit their own shortcomings in this regard. If they mean general knowledge that may include some errors, this applies to an-Nawawi, themselves, and many others from Ahlul-Islam." (Source: فارس بن عامر العجمي)
Really, this issue doesn't even require much elaboration, as it shouldn't even warrant significant concern. The real failure lies in laypeople and beginner students of knowledge not consulting scholars and more knowledgeable students. Often, this stems from the lies and propaganda spread by the Haddaadiyyah sect, with no contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah scholar agreeing with them. In short, it has become a matter of "I say" and "they said," with no scholar of Ahlus-Sunnah aligning with the way they address such issues. Instead, Ahlus-Sunnah maintains respect for these great imams.
It shouldn't be misconstrued as though mistakes or misinterpretations are simply differences of opinion. Rather, depending on the issue, they could very well be false opinions—mistaken views that should be rejected. Additionally, when discussing unrecognized disagreements, or weak opinions, there are two types. Some weak opinions may have some rationale, albeit limited, while others seem so far-fetched that one might wonder how a scholar could have made such an error. These instances are not uncommon, even among the most distinguished scholars, including the Sahaabah and other prominent figures of the Salaf. This is why scholars have said, "Every scholar has a zallah (mistake)."
This leads to an important question: What is the wisdom behind such cases? Allah has allowed these matters to happen, and one wisdom behind this is to show that no one is perfect, not even the most trustworthy ‘ulama’. May Allah have mercy on them all. Another wisdom is that it serves as a test from Allah for those who recognize the mistake. Who will they choose? Will they follow the judgment of Allah, or will they follow the mistake if it suits their desires? This wisdom is confirmed in the narration of ‘Ammaar ibn Yaasir in Saheeh al-Bukhaari concerning the fitnah between the Sahaabah, specifically the conflict between ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and Mu’aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with them both). When our Mother of the Believers, ‘Aa’ishah, sided with Mu’aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with them), those with ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib were surprised, asking, “How can we be in the right if our Mother is with Mu’aawiyah?”
What did ‘Ammaar ibn Yaasir say? "By Allah, she is the wife of your Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in this world and the Hereafter, but Allah, Blessed and Exalted, is testing and trying you through her to see if you will place obedience to Allah—and to the leader obeyed in what is right—above obedience to her." By "her," he referred to ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) and acknowledged that she had made an erroneous interpretation. Though her intent was noble—to pursue justice against ‘Uthman’s killers—the caliph at the time had postponed this pursuit to first restore stability in the land before pursuing ‘Uthman’s killers. May Allah be pleased with him and all the Companions of the Messenger of Allah.
Relevant:
This illustrates the wisdom that even the major and trustworthy ‘ulama’, whom we are obligated to love and respect as part of our Deen and the Sunnah, could fall into such mistakes. The wisdom is that the Muslims are being tested. Will you follow the mistakes of the scholars and justify them, or will you follow the truth as upheld by countless Ahlus-Sunnah scholars? The truth here refers to how the Shar'i textual evidences align with the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah.
Relevant:
For those looking to understand in the English language, I highly recommend reading the introduction to the Commentary on the Forty Hadith of Al-Nawawi, where shaykh Jamaal ad-Deen Zarabozo discusses the biography of imam an-Nawawi.
Lastly, people should understand that they owe no response to the Haddaadiyyah sect. It’s best to avoid engaging in any conversations or debates with them, as one reply to their accusations will only lead to more dishonesty and obstinate attempts to cast doubts.
Relevant:
I could certainly provide many more examples, but I believe the points made so far are sufficient, and the references I’ve shared offer ample insight into my points. However, there’s one final point I’d like to conclude with—a statement from shaykh ‘Abdurrahman al-Mu’allami al-Yamaani:
Many people of our time and those close to it often argue using Ayat from the Qur'an, interpreting them based on their own opinions, with interpretations that have not been transmitted from the Salaf and are not supported by the Arabic language or the rhetorical style of the Qur'an. This has caused great harm, to the extent that you find non-Arabs who only know a few basic Arabic words and are unable to write even two or three lines without making grammatical errors, yet they interpret the Qur'an based on their own understanding. Likewise, they do the same with authentic hadiths, while they are quick to criticize those who oppose them when they cite an Ayah or a hadith and explain it with solid evidence, referencing the explanations of the Salaf that align with their views or support them. They claim that the understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah is exclusive to the mujtahids.
However, if someone opposes the views of a person they consider to be an imam or a wali, they declare him to be a disbeliever or misguided, intensifying their criticism. They say, "Look at this misguided person who claims to understand from the Qur'an or the Sunnah what imam so-and-so or shaykh so-and-so did not understand."
The great calamity is that these ignorant individuals are, in the eyes of the general public, considered to be the religious leaders. This is in accordance with the hadith found in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim from 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, who narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Indeed, Allah does not take away knowledge by removing it from the hearts of the slaves, but He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars, so that when no scholar remains, people will take as leaders ignorant ones. When they are asked, they will give verdicts without knowledge, and they will go astray and lead others astray."
Yes, there are still individuals from among the scholars, as stated in the Saheehayn: "A group from my Ummah will always remain upon the truth." This clarifies the hadith from 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, and Allah knows best. However, the existence of these individuals is nearly negligible because they are strangers, and the general public only sees them as innovators and misled, while religious leadership is in the hands of others.
The point here is to advise Muslims not to be deceived by those who argue using the Qur'an and Sunnah on ambiguous matters. One must examine themselves to see if they are qualified to understand these matters or seek knowledge so that they may become qualified, or, at the very least, exercise caution, as this is not difficult. And Allah knows best.
(Source: كتاب رفع الاشتباه عن معنى العبادة والإله)
There is some truth in the claim by Ahlul-Kalaam that the Madkhaliyyah sect, and from the Ahlus-Sunnah side in their refutation of the Haddaadiyyah sect, along with other pseudo-Salafis, emphasize the affirmation of the Lofty Attributes of Allah when countering Ahlul-Kalaam: The issue lies in the neglect of emphasizing the matters that Allah Himself has stressed. This oversight leads to significant consequences, as it results in a lack of focus on issues that should profoundly impact a Muslim's life—particularly in his relationship with Allah, how his eemaan should influence his actions, and so on.
Revision of the Books of 'Aqeedah
One of the issues that needs revision in the books of 'aqeedah is the discussion of the Attributes of Allah that every Muslim must believe in. Much of what is mentioned in the books of 'aqeedah, and what is often given precedence in discussions, is not necessarily what the Qur'an has emphasized or commanded to be understood in the same way. You often find that the mutakallimoon either mention Attributes that are not found in the Book of Allah, let alone being commanded by Allah, or they discuss Attributes that are in the Qur'an but are not what the Qur'an has specifically focused on or stressed the importance of understanding. Similarly, some books of the hadith scholars, and those who follow them, like some of the Salafiyyah books, give attention to certain Attributes that Allah did not command to be specifically understood, while neglecting those Attributes that He did command to be understood. At best, these books provide only a general mention.
The Attributes of Allah that the Qur'an emphasizes are numerous, including [interpretation of the meaning]:
- "So know that there is no deity except Allah" (Muhammad 47:19).
- "And know that Allah is severe in punishment" (Al-Baqarah 2:196).
- "And fear Allah and know that Allah is All-Knowing of everything" (Al-Baqarah 2:231).
- "And know that Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing" (Al-Baqarah 2:235).
- "And know that Allah is All-Seeing of what you do" (Al-Baqarah 2:233).
- "And know that Allah is with the righteous" (At-Tawbah 9:123).
- And others.
These are the essential Attributes that the Qur'an emphasizes.
However, it is not the case that the discussion should focus on denying the occurrence of events (حلول الحوادث), or the affirmation of volitional Attributes (الصفات الاختيارية), nor on the concepts of coming (المجيء) or arriving (الإتيان), or the Face and Hands, nor on denying corporeality (الجسمية) or the concepts of time and space.Undoubtedly, some of what is mentioned in the books of 'aqeedah is correct, but the focus here is on what should be prioritized in terms of mentioning and teaching according to the core of 'aqeedah. It is certain that other matters may be prioritized if there is a valid reason to depart from the original principles—such as addressing the issue of existence with an atheist. The purpose of this discussion is to clarify the core principles and what must be emphasized in terms of their importance.
(Source: فارس بن عامر العجمي)
ونسأل ٱللَّٰه عز وجل أن يرينا الحق حقا ويرزقنا اتباعه، وأن يرينا الباطل باطلا ويرزقنا اجتنابه، وأن يتوفنا على الإسلام والسنة.