First published: February 24, 2025
The title is similar to the article on Daniel Haqiqatjou, and the issues are exactly alike, with both individuals’ understandings grounded in their education. They are students of Orientalists and philosophers, implicitly aligning with the principles of Ahlul-Kalaam. Additionally, he also appears to be an implicit proponent of the Haddaadiyyah sect. Due to his background and lack of understanding of what it means to be a student of knowledge, his shortcomings reflect the false principles upheld by both the Haddaadiyyah and Ahlul-Kalaam sects, as well as misrepresenting Ahlus-Sunnah scholars. These issues will be explored and addressed as constructive criticisms, with the aim of warning laypeople against learning from individuals who lack the attributes of students of knowledge.
In this day and age, the path of seeking knowledge is unfortunately convoluted and tainted by social media, as if listening to debates, reminders, and speeches is equivalent to how a Muslim should learn their Deen. There is a lack of emphasis on the very matters that Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama' have laid down and established through their books and lectures. Indeed, we are not deprived of sources when it comes to understanding what it means to seek knowledge; rather, laypeople are overwhelmed by constant social media updates. This is why I emphasized early on, on my website, the importance of following the correct path in seeking knowledge and using the relevant resources from Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama'.
Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen online, only a few manage to embody the qualities of a student of knowledge, despite having reservations on certain other issues, whether 'aqeedah-related or otherwise. Nonetheless, few manage to adequately emphasize the proper order in which ordinary Muslims should learn their Deen, and warn against learning from those who are not students of knowledge. While it is understandable that certain issues may need to be addressed, the problem lies in neglecting to emphasize the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, the distinct nature of refutations, and the need for a proper introduction. The need for such an introduction should not only represent the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, where the details of our correct beliefs are highlighted, but also set apart the secondary topics of refutations and the false beliefs, understandings, or assertions of misguided individuals or sects. Correct belief must first be established, with contexts provided from both sides—i.e., the correct position of Ahlus-Sunnah and the misguidance of deviant sects or individuals.
In other words, there is a lack of emphasis in suggesting to the laypeople that learning the Deen should primarily come from the 'ulama', not from students of knowledge. While not everyone may understand the Arabic language, the secondary exception is to learn from high-level students of knowledge. This misstep has led to pretentious students of knowledge emphasizing matters of belief that were not previously emphasized by the Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama'. It has even led them to elevate certain issues beyond their proper place, causing anyone who opposes their understanding to be seen as misguided or to have their belief questioned as to whether they are truly Ahlus-Sunnah.
Without a solid foundational knowledge, laypeople should not be encouraged to engage with these matters before they understand the core beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah. Therefore, a proper introduction is crucial, as it allows one to clearly distinguish between what is being critiqued. As the principle states: "البينة على المدعي" (The burden of proof is on the claimant).
It’s concerning these days that the categorization of people into three groups—laypeople, students of knowledge, and 'ulama'—is often overlooked. This categorization helps distinguish the pretentious from the genuine, especially since a student of knowledge learns these concepts from introductory books, both on seeking knowledge and in usool al-fiqh.
Even in introductory books on usool al-fiqh, the definition of knowledge, who is qualified for ijtihaad, and who should do taqleed are discussed. The reality confirms that there are only three categories of people in terms of knowledge. While the 'ulama' vary in their expertise, so too do the students of knowledge and the laypeople.
Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr explains that even some students of knowledge may fall under the category of "laypeople," as they have not yet reached the level of qualification required, despite their interest in knowledge. (Source)
Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama' have written books on the etiquette of seeking knowledge and the manners that a seeker of knowledge should embody. We are certainly not deprived of such books, lectures, and articles in this day and age. If we claim to love the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), why aren’t we striving to embody his best characteristics? Social media has led people to adopt unbecoming traits that a Muslim shouldn’t have, let alone a student of knowledge.
Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd (may Allah have mercy upon him) has written an invaluable book on the etiquette of seeking knowledge. For example, to quote two of his statements:
"To embody chivalry (المروءة), and the qualities that lead to it, such as noble character traits, a pleasant demeanor, spreading salaam, being patient with people, dignity without arrogance, pride without tyranny, nobility without partisanship, and zeal without ignorance. Therefore, one must avoid things that damage chivalry (خوارم المروءة), whether in nature, speech, or actions, such as degrading occupations, bad traits like arrogance, showing off, indulgence, pride, contempt for others, and frequenting places of suspicion."
"Adhere to gentleness in speech, avoiding harsh words, for gentle speech softens the hearts of those who are hard. The evidence from the Book [of Allah] and Sunnah on this is abundant."
Read further:
However, if you understand the Arabic language, it is preferable to read the book in its original form:
As such, I implore those interested in seeking knowledge to first learn the proper etiquettes and manners before speaking on matters beyond their level and understanding:
The most important work after The Etiquette of Seeking Knowledge by shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd is his book "التعالم وأثره على الفكر والكتاب," (Pretending to Knowledge and Its Impact on Thought and Writing) which unfortunately has not yet been translated into English. However, for those in the "da’wah scene," as they are often referred to by those active online, I strongly recommend they read it—especially since many claim to know the Arabic language.
To quote a few passages from the book:
Thus, Qataadah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Whoever speaks before his time, he will be exposed in his time."
This is because the truth will be revealed by those who are knowledgeable, exposing the falsehoods and the deceit that person conceals, along with the corruption and lies that come with it. Their misguided approach becomes evident, stripping them of credibility and warning others against being deceived by them.
It is the duty of the people of Islam to stand against any pretender to knowledge who claims to be a scholar while not being one. This is necessary to protect them from the Fire, to guide them on the right path, and to repel the tide of false claims of knowledge. It is a defense of the integrity of Islam, protecting it from every rebellious individual, and safeguarding its followers from doubt, fragmentation, and division caused by the spread of false knowledge among the people.
I’ve often emphasized terms like “the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah,” and the importance of using that term, as it has been the primary distinguishing factor — the asl (الأصل) — while other terms slowly distance themselves from this foundational point. For instance, claimants of Ahlus-Sunnah often use terms like "Salafi" and "Athari." I have already pointed out that "Salafi" has become a problematic term, one that Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama' addressed, and which they themselves never emphasized. Similarly, because many are aware of the issues surrounding the term "Salafi," they have turned to terms like "Athari." However, unbeknownst to them, this inadvertently affirms the false categorization of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah into three groups, as propagated by the Ahlul-Kalaam sects. (Source)
The failure to use the proper terminology set forth by the Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama', or to address or emphasize such matters as they did, marks the starting point of deviating from the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. Instead, it leads to the adoption of the very concepts or terminologies perpetuated by the misguided sects they claim to oppose, despite their rightful intentions. Moreover, this inadvertently gives ordinary Muslims the false impression that it is permissible for them to engage in, learn, and study philosophy from the kuffaar, especially when these individuals hold degrees from Orientalist universities and have studied something that is haram, namely philosophy!! Yet, we continue to see them using the terminology of Orientalists and philosophers time and time again!!
To remind you of the first article:
The Cause of Misguidance is al-'Ujmah (the inability or lack of proficiency in the Arabic language):
Ignorance of the methods of the Arabic language resulted in some texts being understood in ways other than their intended meanings, and this became a cause for the introduction of what was unknown to the first generations. Among the statements that affirm this matter are:
1. Imam al-Hasan al-Basri, when asked about the cause of misguidance, said: "What destroyed them was their al-'Ujmah."
2. Some scholars have said: "People did not fall into ignorance and disagreement except for their abandonment of the Arabic language and their inclination toward Aristotle (Greek philosophy)... The Qur'an was not revealed, nor did the Sunnah come, except in the terminology of the Arabs, according to their methods of discussion, communication, argumentation, and reasoning—not according to the terminology of the Greeks. Every people has its own language and terminology."
(Source: The Importance of Arabic and Usool al-Fiqh)
Such deviation—here, I mean distancing oneself from using the proper terminologies of the Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama'—implicitly affirms the acceptance of the worst of people: philosophers who consider themselves far superior to the prophets and claim they do not need divine revelation for guidance. Yet, these very same people, who outwardly appear so vicious against the innovators, have no problem with pridefully mentioning their study of philosophy and citing their “academic” credentials, such as a Master’s in Theology and Philosophy. Yes, that’s right, this is Jake, just like how his colleagues are.
To reiterate some points from my previous article, "Demonstrating the Foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah", I would like to quote again what shaykh Saalih al-Munajjid said about the false concepts that have been introduced into our Deen by either the ignorant or the misguided:
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)
Previously, if you have read my statement, I initially had the impression that brother Jake was steering towards Ahlus-Sunnah, but now I do not believe this to be the case. Instead, he appears to be steering towards the Haddaadiyyah sect. In any case, the point still stands: regarding his descriptions of having a "Master's in Theology and Philosophy," he should denounce this and warn more severely against studying such Orientalistic and philosophical studies, even more so than he warns against what he considers the Ahlul-Kalaam sects. Claiming to be "Athari" while being a student of Orientalism and philosophy is a contradiction. These studies are far more dangerous than 'Ilm al-Kalaam, and the kuffaar, who are the proponents of such studies, are far more dangerous than Ahlul-Kalaam.
We have seen how the Khawaarij oppose the Muslims while leaving the mushrikeen. Yet, the same pattern is strikingly reminiscent of the Madkhaliyyah and Haddaadiyyah sects. These people display fiercer hostility toward those they consider misguided Muslims, whether their declarations are right or wrong, than they do toward the kuffaar. Their hatred for Muslims has led them to be vile in their language and harsh in their manners. How strikingly similar and reminiscent of the hadith:
"... يَقْتُلُونَ أَهْلَ الإسْلَامِ وَيَدَعُونَ أَهْلَ الأوْثَانِ ..."
"... They kill the people of Islam and leave the people of idols..." (Read)
Having leniency towards the kuffaar and leaving them alone, while being fierce against Muslims, is in direct opposition to the Ayah itself:
مُّحَمَّدٌۭ رَّسُولُ ٱللَّهِ ۚ وَٱلَّذِينَ مَعَهُۥٓ أَشِدَّآءُ عَلَى ٱلْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَآءُ بَيْنَهُمْ ۖ ...
"Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is the Messenger of Allâh. And those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves..." (Al-Fath 48:29)
The first false principle that Rabee' al-Madkhali espouses is that, according to him, the Khawaarij are Salafis in creed but innovators in methodology. Since Rabee' appears to have elevated “manhaj” above ‘aqeedah, anyone opposing what he considers “manhaj” is declared an innovator. This is why we see the Madkhaliyyah sect, with little to no understanding of what constitutes an opposition to the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, unable to articulate from scholarly references what makes an individual a Khaariji. This is reminiscent of how Mahmood al-Haddaad opposed the Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama' who had been influenced, to some degree, by 'Ilm al-Kalaam, such as imam an-Nawawi and al-Haafidh ibn Hajar. In Mahmood al-Haddaad's view, books from these scholars should be burned. (Read) This gave rise to the Haddaadiyyah sect, which has been revived by figures like ibn Shams and al-Khulayfi, who oppose anyone who defends the honor of these great imams. In short, they are more severe in their opposition to Muslims defending the honor of these imams than they are in their opposition to the kuffaar.
Relevant:
Hence, when people deviate from the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, they share commonalities in their deviations. This is why we see Sufis, Ahlul-Kalaam, and Raafidhah being more severe against what they consider "Wahhaabis" than against the kuffaar. Therefore, I suggest that readers refer to the "Summary of al-Madkhali's Principles," as such deviations are reminiscent not only of Jake Brancatella but also of Daniel Haqiqatjou and the Haddaadiyyah sect.
The misguided sects—such as al-Madkhaliyyah, al-Haddaadiyyah, al-Khawaarij, Ahlul-Kalaam, and even Sufis—treat those they consider "innovators" with greater severity than they do the kuffaar. As mentioned, they all share this common trait.
On the other hand, some within Ahlus-Sunnah, including certain 'ulama' and students of knowledge, unfortunately hold a similar view. They cite narrations from the Salaf and statements from early scholars suggesting that Ahlul-Bida'ah are far more dangerous than the kuffaar, arguing that while the kuffaar attack the bodies of Muslims, the innovators corrupt their hearts.
However, the plots of the kuffaar against Muslims have significantly advanced. While the early scholars' statements regarding the greater danger of innovators may have been valid in their specific historical contexts, the reality today has reversed. To take these statements out of context—as though they were divinely revealed—is an exaggeration and a serious misunderstanding of the present situation. It reflects a grave ignorance of the threat posed by the kuffaar against Muslims today. (Relevant)
In short, as previously mentioned in the article on Jamaa'at at-Tableegh:
... Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah discussed two extremely deviant sects: the Raafidhah and the Jahmiyyah. He described how their travels resulted in some people converting to Islam through their efforts, stating that in this specific instance, being a Raafidhi or Jahmi is preferable to remaining a disbeliever. (Source) Thus, a disbeliever who has never heard anything about Islam would be better off being guided by them than continuing in disbelief. It should be clear that one does not wish for others to remain in these misguided sects, but rather to follow Ahlus-Sunnah. This shows that not every aspect of such misguided sects is entirely evil. There may have been outward aspects of Islam, albeit distorted, that they saw as good before becoming deeply engulfed in grave misguidance. If it were entirely evil, they would not have embraced Islam. However, this is a different matter if it involves zandaqah, other shirk practices, or beliefs...
There is a reason why the kuffaar have institutionalized the study of Islam and Muslims, which is now known as Orientalism. Specialized institutions are dedicated to researching Muslims, and there have even been instances where individuals appear to embrace Islam and study with the 'ulama'. (Source) Kuffaar in this day and age, especially after Louis the Ninth was captured in Egypt, have become more cunning.
Rather, our mashaayikh are not unaware of the dangers they pose to Muslims:
To quote from the last reference, titled "The Western Conspiracy Against the Arabic Language" in English, the shaykh said in one passage:
Indeed, America has benefited from the experience of other nations and their efforts in combating Islam, its people, and its language. It has been more cunning in deception, treachery, conspiracy, and warfare, and here is the explanation of this:
The author of the book "An Islamic Vision of Orientalism" (144) says: "Western intelligence agencies in general, and American intelligence agencies in particular, cooperate closely with Orientalist study centers, especially Middle Eastern study centers in the West, particularly regarding Islamic revival and its developments." May Allah preserve us!
Returning to the question of why the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah matter—one of the most damning admissions by Jake Brancatella is that he outright considers the Ashaa'irah and Maaturidiyyah as part of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah! It is no wonder that he regurgitates this false categorization of Ahlul-Kalaam, despite his staunch opposition to them, claiming that Ahlus-Sunnah is divided into three: Athariyyah, Ashaa'irah, and Maaturidiyyah. This is precisely why he considers himself an "Athari"!!
The most shocking part of all this is that it comes from the first page of his so-called "academic" article, "Ash'arism: The Creed of the Ummah?"
Since he is a student of Orientalism and philosophy, it is no surprise that he is unashamedly propagating such deviance to the masses—as if it is permissible in our Shari'ah to study philosophy!! One can only wonder why he has no issue referencing Orientalist studies in his "academic" paper, which is strikingly reminiscent of what shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd said:
And when you know that there are several kaafir countries where universities issue degrees that are not recognized, because they have no credibility or legitimacy, and that these degrees are bought and sold like goods in the market.
And when you know that some students exploit the ignorance of their professors, who are unfamiliar with the Arabic language, by choosing Arabic works that they then translate into the university’s language, attributing them to themselves in order to earn a degree, and that this reality is probably known by the people of each country, regarding some of their own or others.
Then you will not be surprised by what I say, and you may even see it as a valid critique of these numerous universities, which reveal many of their superficial pretensions that have collapsed in the marketplace of modernity, stemming from small, weak hearts that spread falsehoods in an attempt to undermine the truth or stir up confusion against it.
(Source: التعالم وأثره على الفكر والكتاب, page 11)
Apart from that, Jake also misrepresents imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, just as he did in his video on the Ashaa'irah, seemingly ignorant of the statements of Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama' regarding imam Abu al-Hasan's return to the Sunnah, which has been well established. (Source)
Relevant:
Jake also misrepresents imam al-Juwayni, considering him an Ash'ari (as stated on page 22 of his article on Ash'arism), despite the fact that he too returned to the Sunnah. This has been addressed in introductory books on usool al-fiqh, including imam al-Juwayni’s own works, which Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama' have studied and explained—such as shaykh 'Abdullah al-Fawzan, who discusses this on page 13 of his commentary. This raises the question for Jake: If he claims to have studied usool al-fiqh, which books did he study, under whose explanations, or under which scholars?
While we can agree that the Ashaa'irah is a misguided sect, Jake goes further by even mistranslating the term "ta'weel" according to the Ashaa'irah as "metaphorical interpretation" in his "academic" paper (page 22). In doing so, he misrepresents the Ashaa'irah, despite the fact that no such term in the Arabic language has ever conveyed this meaning.
There is a Master’s degree thesis that highlights the false conceptions of the misguided sects regarding "ta'weel," and the author received the highest grade (ممتاز) for her research:
On a related issue regarding the different understandings of "ta'weel" in relation to the Qur'an, along with its correct understanding, please refer to shaykh Dr. Musaa'id at-Tayyaar's book:
These issues alone demonstrate that engaging in matters against which Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama', even from the earliest sources, have warned—such as debates and discussing issues beyond one's level without having learned the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah—is highly problematic.
However, Jake also seems to have an odd understanding of what "usool" actually entails. In another "academic" paper of his, "Ash'aris and Philosophers: Problems Proving Prophethood?", he states on page 18: "Some have claimed that Ash'aris and Maturidis represent Ahl al-Sunna and are one school upon the same foundational principles (usool). However, this can be challenged..."
Additionally, he references his article on Ash'arism in the footnotes, yet fails to correct his dangerous and misleading claim that the Ashaa'irah and Maaturidiyyah are part of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah.
In another "academic" paper by Jake, "The God of Aristotle is Not the God of Abraham," he misrepresents al-Haafidh Badr ad-Deen al-'Ayni, falsely labeling him as a "Maaturidi" (on page 15). Additionally, he conflates passages, presenting them as though they were Badr ad-Deen al-'Ayni's own words (on page 16), when in fact, they were statements cited from someone else!!
None of the Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama'—such as shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr, shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin al-'Abbaad, shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh, and others—have ever made any remark indicating that al-'Ayni's 'aqeedah aligns with the Maaturidiyyah!
Relevant:
This raises the question of whether his assessment of shaykh Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri as a "Maaturidi" (as stated on page 17) is even accurate, and on what basis he makes this claim.
Needless to say, one of the most egregious descriptions Jake gave of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah was labeling him a "theologian" and referring to the "theology" of imam al-Bukhaari, seemingly attempting to describe his 'aqeedah. This was on the very first page of "The God of Aristotle is Not the God of Abraham"!
He also misrepresented shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah by labeling him a "theologian" and an "ardent defender of the Athari creed" in his "academic" paper "An Athari Critique of Ibn Sina’s Argument from Composition (AFC)" (page 5). Additionally, in "Ash’aris and Philosophers: Problems Proving Prophethood?" (page 2), he refers to "the Athari traditionalist view represented by Ibn Taymiyyah."
Such odd descriptions only serve to perpetuate the language of the Orientalists and reinforce the false categorization of Ahlus-Sunnah into three groups—a distortion propagated by Ahlul-Kalaam.
If Jake truly claims to be from Ahlus-Sunnah, then he should denounce, avoid, and warn against the terminological influences of Orientalists and philosophers, and stop repeating the same mistakes as the Madaakhilah in their overemphasis of the term "Salafi." Instead, he has opted to use the term "Athari", which implicitly affirms—and in some of his writings, he even explicitly upholds—the false categorization of Ahlus-Sunnah into three groups, as promoted by Ahlul-Kalaam, without correcting or denouncing it!
What is even more disturbing is that the harm caused by Orientalists and philosophers is far graver than that of Ahlul-Kalaam, yet Jake does not display more harshness and severity toward them, as should be the case. Instead, he directs greater viciousness and hostility toward the misguidance of Ahlul-Kalaam, while failing to show the necessary opposition toward the far more dangerous Orientalists and philosophers!!
What's even stranger is that Jake appears uncertain about whether imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari retracted ibn Kullaab's beliefs, despite having cited shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah's works. In the very same book, ibn Taymiyyah himself references one of imam Abu al-Hasan's later works, which is well known to prove his return to the Sunnah—yet Jake overlooked this in his video, "Are the Ash'aris and Maturidis Part of Ahl us-Sunnah Wal Jama'ah?"
In short, shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah cited Maqaalaat al-Islaamiyyeen, a fact that Jake seemingly missed.
When Jake read the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah from his book Minhaaj as-Sunnah, he neglected the context of ibn Taymiyyah’s words. Jake then imposed, interpolated, misinterpreted, projected, and superimposed meanings that ibn Taymiyyah never intended, interpreting his statements to mean that the term "groups" includes Ashaa'irah, Maaturidiyyah, and others!!
In turn, without seemingly realizing it, the term "الطَّوَائِفِ" does not even mean "sects" but rather "groups"! The correct term for "sects" is "فرق"! This means that Jake would then have to force himself to misinterpret other statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah as referring to sects, such as the following:
... وَقَدِ احْتَجَّ بِهِ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ أَحْمَدَ وَغَيْرِهِمْ، وَهُوَ حَدِيثٌ مَوْضُوعٌ ...
"... A group (طائفة) from among the companions of Ahmad and others have used it as evidence, but it is a fabricated hadith..."
In Jake's view, this would imply "A sect from among the companions of Ahmad..."!!
Here's the context that Jake seemingly did not read, which is actually the follow-up statement after the partial excerpts he quoted:
وَهَذَا الرَّافِضِيُّ -[يَعْنِي الْمُصَنِّفَ] - جَعَلَ أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ بِالِاصْطِلَاحِ الْأَوَّلِ، وَهُوَ اصْطِلَاحُ الْعَامَّةِ: كُلَّ مَنْ لَيْسَ بِرَافِضِيٍّ، قَالُوا: هُوَ مِنْ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ. ثُمَّ أَخَذَ يَنْقُلُ عَنْهُمْ مَقَالَاتٍ لَا يَقُولُهَا إِلَّا بَعْضُهُمْ مَعَ تَحْرِيفِهِ لَهَا، فَكَانَ فِي نَقْلِهِ مِنَ الْكَذِبِ وَالِاضْطِرَابِ مَا لَا يَخْفَى عَلَى ذَوِي الْأَلْبَابِ.
وَإِذَا عُرِفَ [أَنَّ] مُرَادَهُ بِأَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ السُّنَّةُ الْعَامَّةُ، فَهَؤُلَاءِ مُتَنَازِعُونَ فِي إِثْبَاتِ الْجِسْمِ وَنَفْيِهِ كَمَا تَقَدَّمَ، وَالْإِمَامِيَّةُ أَيْضًا مُتَنَازِعُونَ فِي ذَلِكَ.
(Source)
This Raafidhi (i.e., the author being referenced) has used the first definition, which is the general definition commonly used by the masses—where anyone who is not Raafidhi is considered from Ahlus-Sunnah. Then, he proceeded to quote statements from them, some of which only a few of them actually say, while distorting their meaning. As a result, his narration is filled with lies and inconsistencies that are obvious to those who possess intellect and insight.
And if it is understood that his intended meaning of Ahlus-Sunnah refers to the general Sunnah, then these [people] themselves differ on the affirmation or negation of jism, as previously mentioned. Likewise, the Imaamiyyah also have disagreements on this matter.
This is the problem of not knowing the Arabic language or usool al-fiqh! Exactly as shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah expressed before: "... Taking the opinions of fuqahaa' from general statements without referring to their explanations and the implications of their principles leads to reprehensible positions." (Source)
At around 12:15 in the same video, he further misinterprets the statement of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, as if ibn Taymiyyah had used the term "takfiris", despite no such wording ever being mentioned. Instead, the actual phrase used was "هؤلاء المكفرين بالباطل", which contextually means "these people who falsely declare others as disbelievers."!! (Source)
At around 26:07, he states regarding imam an-Nawawi: "I'm not going into his 'aqeedah more generally, but on this issue specifically, very clearly, at the outset, he rejects the Ash'ari position and the position of the Mutakallimoon..." as though he is implicitly asserting that imam an-Nawawi is an Ash'ari.
It has been repeatedly proven that imam an-Nawawi upheld the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah but was influenced by 'Ilm al-Kalaam.
At around 58:23, Jake went on to say that imam al-Bukhaari declared the Ashaa'rah to hold the same position as the Jahmiyyah, despite the fact that imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari was born in 260 AH and passed away in 324 AH, whereas imam al-Bukhaari was born in 194 AH and passed away in 256 AH!!
At around 58:33, he went on to cite sources from shaykhul-Islam in a way that suggested imam Abu al-Hasan never repented, despite the fact that the discussion was contextually about what he used to believe—just as it is addressed in other works of shaykhul-Islam. In the video, at around 59:02, there is a screenshot referencing two texts: one in which he claims that imam Abu al-Hasan held the same position as the Jahmiyyah according to imam al-Bukhaari, and another reference seemingly attempting to portray Abu al-Hasan accordingly.
This is quite disturbing, as Jake does not present these matters in a scholarly manner, nor in the way Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama' handle such discussions. Instead, this perpetuates misrepresentations and misconceptions, aligning more with how the Haddaadiyyah approach these issues!! There is neither precision nor caution in his presentation—rather, it is strikingly reminiscent of how shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd discussed these issues in his book "التعالم وأثره على الفكر والكتاب".
Relevant:
At around 1:01:26, he said, "That's why when I accuse the Ash'aris of their likening Allah to actually idols because they cannot speak..."
Once again, while we can agree that the Ashaa’irah is a misguided sect, failing to present this topic in the way Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama' do is highly problematic. This is the same misplaced enthusiasm often seen among youth when speaking out against voters in democracy, hastily accusing them of ascribing Allah with idols!
There is neither wisdom nor caution in such an approach. Yes, such false beliefs could lead to a result where it is as though Allah is an idol, and yes, voting in a democracy is shirk, but the Ashaa’irah engage in false ta’weel, and many people remain ignorant of the reality of voting and democracy.
Jake’s odd choice of words further demonstrates that he lack of the qualities of a student of knowledge. Rather, he comes across as a layperson with misplaced enthusiasm and zeal, attempting to emphasize what he deems important, while implicitly suggesting that students of knowledge are failing in their role in warning against such matters—or even explicitly stating, as he has in some of his videos, that no one in the English-speaking world addresses these issues in the way that he does!!
At around 1:05:40, he reads a passage from imam Ahmad concerning the Jahmiyyah being kuffaar. This, once again, is a misrepresentation of imam Ahmad and is exactly what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah mentioned several times—where some fuqahaa' misunderstood imam Ahmad’s words!!
It is quite ironic—rather, disturbing—that after citing imam Ahmad, he acts as though he is being meticulous in presenting these scholarly statements, while in reality, he is misrepresenting them.
Such matters have been thoroughly addressed in detail in articles on my site.
It should also be noted that there are significant differences within the Ashaa'irah—a natural consequence of following misguidance. In contrast, within Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, there are no such differences of opinion on foundational matters.
Which beliefs an Ash'ariyyah subscribes to can vary depending on the sources from which they have learned their 'aqeedah. There are generational distinctions, ranging from imam al-Juwayni and imam al-Ghazzaali to Fakhr ar-Raazi, and even up to the book Jawharah at-Tawheed. Nonetheless, imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari (may Allah have mercy upon him) remains distinct from those who claim to be Ash‘aris.
This is where Jake fails to accurately describe the Ashaa’irah, and his presentation lacks coherence. While he later accurately depicts them as a misguided sect in his video "Are the Ash‘aris Part of Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jama'ah?" (at around 1:14:00 and onwards), why is he not correcting or denouncing his previous false statements?
Why does he continue to reference his "academic" papers that contain such false conceptions? Or does he cater to different audiences, presenting himself one way to some while appealing differently to others?
Yet, at the end of the video, he concludes by saying, "And the Ash'aris and Maturidis can be called 'Sunnis' in the sense that they are much closer to us, yes, definitely, and we don't make takfir of their entire groups necessarily, but they are upon deviant 'aqeedahs..."
What nonsense and such inconsistencies!!
This is exactly like how Rabee' al-Madkhali asserts that the Khawaarij are Salafi in 'aqeedah but innovators in methodology!!
Jake exposes himself as someone who does not truly comprehend what it means to be part of Ahlus-Sunnah and what its foundations entail!!
By far, since he repeatedly misapplies terminology influenced by Orientalists and philosophers, and due to his "Master's degree in Theology and Philosophy", along with the misrepresentations, unfounded interpolations, and projections of the 'ulama's statements that I have previously highlighted—can he truly be expected to accurately represent the statements of imam ibn Qudaamah on the beliefs of the Ashaa’irah in his video "Ibn Qudamah and the Ash'aris"?
Rather, it is no surprise that such inconsistencies are present in his video.
Let us first consider imam ibn Qudaamah's position on the misguided sects, as presented in his book "Lum‘ah al-I‘tiqaad", along with the explanation of shaykh Naasir al-‘Aql:
The author [imam ibn Qudaamah] (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"Among the Sunnah is to abandon the people of innovation, to distance oneself from them, and to avoid argumentation and disputes in matters of religion. It is also to refrain from reading the books of the innovators and listening to their speech. Every newly introduced matter in the religion is a bid‘ah, and everyone who adopts an identity other than Islam and the Sunnah is an innovator—such as the Raafidhah, the Jahmiyyah, the Khawaarij, the Qadariyyah, the Murji’ah, the Mu‘tazilah, the Karraamiyyah, the Kullaabiyyah, and their likes. These are the sects of misguidance and the groups of innovation—may Allah protect us from them."
Before quoting further from the book, I seriously wonder—if Jake holds such a high regard for ibn Qudaamah and has dedicated his time to making two videos attempting to represent the imam’s position, then why does he fail to live up to the words of the imam by abandoning the people of innovation and avoiding argumentation and disputes in matters of religion?
Furthermore, why has he not openly recanted from his prideful title of having a "Master's degree in Theology and Philosophy", which is far worse than merely reading from the books of the innovators?
Why such hypocrisy and double standards?
Al-Bahooti (al-Hanbali) said in [كشاف القناع] (3/34): "The opposite of shar’i knowledge is knowledge that is haram or makrooh. Haram knowledge is like ‘ilm al-kalaam in which they argue on the basis of pure reason or speak in a manner that contradicts sound, unambiguous reports. If they speak on the basis of reports only or on the basis of texts and rational thought that is in accordance with them, then this is the basis of religion and the way of Ahlus-Sunnah. This is what is meant by the words of shaykh Taqiy ad-Deen. In his commentary he explains that even better. [Haram knowledge also includes] philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology and geomancy, as well as alchemy and natural sciences." End quote.
Read further:
In any case, shaykh Naasir al-'Aql stated:
Then he said: “And their likes”—meaning those among the sects of misguidance who came after them or were their contemporaries, as well as groups of innovation who were not specifically named, such as the Saalimiyyah, the Mushabbihah, the Ashaa'irah, the Maatureediyyah, and others.
All of them are people of Kalaam and people of innovation, each to the extent of the misguidance they hold.
This is similar to how other mashaayikh have understood imam ibn Qudaamah’s stance, particularly through his works, stating: "An example of the statements made by some of the imams regarding the Ash‘ariyyah, which does not necessarily imply takfeer of individuals, though they understood it as such, is ibn Qudaamah’s statement in his creed:" Following this, they quoted the same passage I previously cited, though in their edition of the book, the word "al-Ash‘ariyyah" was explicitly included. Then they said:
Calling oneself an "Ash‘ari" and affiliating with Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari is an innovation, unlike affiliation with the four madhhabs. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah states: "Simply identifying as an Ash‘ari is an innovation, especially since it creates the false impression that everyone who affiliates with this label is upon correctness, thereby opening the doors to evil."
Ibn al-Mu‘allim cited ibn Qudaamah’s statement and forced upon it an interpretation that it does not bear, saying: "He classified the Ash‘ariyyah among those who assume an identity other than Islam. So what excuse do we have left for those whose doctrine and belief is to declare us disbelievers?! By my life, Bujeer has accused Bujeer of what he himself is guilty of—he has forgotten his own case."
What further proves the false attribution of takfeer to ibn Qudaamah is that he had students from among the Ash‘ariyyah who studied hadith under him, such as Abu Shaamah al-Maqdisi. If he had truly considered them disbelievers, he would not have engaged with them in this manner. It is also highly unlikely that he was unaware of their Ash‘ari affiliation.
Thus, ibn al-Mu‘allim failed to accurately present ibn Qudaamah’s statement, and based his response on his own mistaken assumption about ibn Qudaamah’s position. He even hinted at accusing the Hanaabilah of takfeer when he said: "By my life, Bujeer has accused Bujeer of what he himself is guilty of—he has forgotten his own case."
In the footnote, they acknowledged that imam ibn Qudaamah made severe statements regarding the Ash‘ariyyah and al-Ash‘ari himself. They then cited books that I believe Jake used to infer—incorrectly—as though the imam had explicitly declared specified takfeer on the Ash‘ariyyah, labeling them as zanaadiqah. Rather, they concluded by stating: "... It also clarifies that the claim that Ahlus-Sunnah are the ones who broke the barrier of solemnity in declaring their opponents disbelievers— in light of these texts and others—is nothing but a pure fabrication..."
Read further:
This is reminiscent of another article and a different topic, but on a related note regarding reading from the 'ulama' and understanding their terminologies:
... The problem, in short, is that these individuals fail to recognize that ibn Taymiyyah’s terminology was developed for the purpose of clarification, aiming to resolve the ambiguities present in the discourse of the Mutakallimoon. However, his predecessors were not necessarily bound by these terms; rather, their beliefs should be understood based on the overall context of their statements and actions.
This is a crucial issue in 'aqeedah research—I am referring to the matter of terminology—as it requires a broader and deeper study than what can be covered here.
Therefore, it is important to emphasize that these topics require a student of knowledge to have a deep understanding of 'aqeedah and its fundamental principles. It is not sufficient for a student to simply memorize its issues while blindly imitating others in them.
Source:
What I have presented so far should be sufficient in proving that Jake has misrepresented imam ibn Qudaamah and is guilty of inferring meanings that are unfounded in the imam’s principles.
Had Jake studied usool al-fiqh properly, this would have been clear to him, especially from imam ibn Qudaamah’s own well-known book on usool al-fiqh.
Since Jake seemingly has a good understanding of the Arabic language, I would like to invite him to listen to a student of knowledge addressing the question of whether imam ibn Qudaamah declared takfeer on the Ashaa’irah:
I would also like to invite Jake to read this book in addition to what I have already referenced:
There are some videos in which Jake appears to have no hesitation in declaring specified takfeer on individuals, without the caution and careful consideration that such a ruling requires. He also fails to properly address who is actually subject to specified takfeer, which, as is well-known, is a matter entrusted to the 'ulama'. Furthermore, he does not seem to recognize the vile nature of his words towards others—such as calling Daniel Haqiqatjou a shaytan and a zindeeq.
As has been highlighted in many instances, Jake frequently misrepresents Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama', misreads their statements, infers unfounded meanings, applies false terminologies borrowed from Orientalists and philosophers, and mistranslates words. His interview with Muhammad Hijab was also difficult to watch, as his comments in other videos do not reflect the conduct or approach of a student of knowledge.
The discussions between Jake and Daniel have also been largely inaccurate. At times, Daniel has made statements that contained some truth, but due to his lack of knowledge, he is guilty of misrepresenting scholarly positions. On the other hand, Jake does the same, failing to accurately present the statements of Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama'.
Beyond this, both of them reinforce the false categorization of Ahlus-Sunnah—a division propagated by Ahlul-Kalaam, which wrongly classifies it into three groups. Their misuse and misapplication of the term "Athariyyah" mirrors the Madaakhilah's excessive emphasis on the term "Salafi."
It is an absolute mess, and once again, this serves as proof that laypeople should learn directly from scholars. If not, they should at least seek knowledge from high-level students of knowledge, prioritizing the etiquettes and manners of seeking knowledge before anything else. This applies to both Daniel and Jake.
If they find themselves in positions where people expect more from them, then they should learn to uphold better etiquette and exercise the necessary caution when presenting these topics. At the very least, they should be sincere in acknowledging their missteps and willing to accept constructive criticism.
I am truly taken aback by their haste and lack of caution in these matters.
Dear brother Jake, please take this as a lesson:
Additionally, I encourage you to read these articles:
ونسأل ٱللَّٰه عز وجل أن يرينا الحق حقا ويرزقنا اتباعه، وأن يرينا الباطل باطلا ويرزقنا اجتنابه، وأن يتوفنا على الإسلام والسنة.