Did the Sahaba speak about Sifat? A refutation of Yasir Qadhi's ramblings

Praise be to Allah, and may blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, his companions, and those who follow his guidance.

I consider this audio to be very important about a recurrent theme among people, which is the claim that the Salafi creed concerning the attributes of Allah was not expressed by the Companions.

This claim was recently made by Yasir Qadhi, who studied at the Islamic University of Medinah, he was a prominent student, he has a PhD, etc. But, in recent years, he has been taking a modernist approach, and he is a good example of what I have talked about many times in “A Chat about the Al-Manar School,”¹ that there is a group of people who have made the highest issues of religion the issues related to the rights of people, and as for the issues of Allah’s attributes and what is related to Allah and His rights, these are issues that they have lowered from their high position, while for the predecessors they were the highest thing.

Yasir Qadhi was speaking on a podcast in English. The reason I am commenting on it even though it is in English is because these ideas are prevalent and widespread, and today many young Arabs understand English and follow such material.

The podcast episode is titled “Three Levels of Aqeedah”. On this podcast he makes several statements: One of them is that you should follow whichever school of theology you find yourself comfortable with: Salafi, Ash’ari, Sufi, Shi’i, Ibadi… whatever you feel comfortable with! Whatever school of thought makes you love Allah and His Messenger, follow it.

Of course, he rejects the idea of the existence of the saved group and the victorious sect.

He also says that creedal issues are like jurisprudential issues, and that modern Salafism does not represent the Salaf.

Of course, even if it represented the Salaf in a certain domain, he would still not accept this view in that specific domain. And this is one of the tricks they always play. He tells you: “Akhi, even you do not follow the Salaf in such-and-such issue!” Even though there may be a discussion about it. But, the thing is that he is trying to break you psychologically, and this is the matter that confuses me about many of those who critique us from among the Arabic speakers. You feel that they actually want to object to the Salaf and accuse them of contradiction or accuse them of extremism, while making it appear as if he is responding to you. So you try to understand - honestly - what is his creed? Honestly, what is his aqidah? Does he believe that there is actually a saved group and a victorious sect? And that there are people of truth and there are people of falsehood? Or does he believe that the Salaf are extremists? And that they are no different from the opponents whom the Salaf declared kuffar? That they may have some truth with them but they transgressed against their opponents? If this is his idea about the Salaf, then he must show it courageously!

And what is the problem? The problem is that you cannot differentiate between his argument and the argument of the person who says these words. Then if you catch him and say to him: “Is this what you are saying?” he will say: “No, that’s not what I am saying. My problem is only with your understanding.” So you say: “Okay, if your problem is with my understanding, then bring the words of the Salaf and explain them with a clear explanation, without much effort, that gives me a sound and correct meaning!”

Also, Yasir Qadhi says that aqidah evolves, and he says that “we used to accuse some Muslims of polytheism, even though many of them are more pious, more worshipful than us, and more devoted to prayer in reality, and truly love Allah and His Messenger. I do not see any polytheism in them” That’s what he says - I will refute these fallacies, but I’m summarizing them first - and he says that “all of these strands of theology are human attempts shaped by cultural, social, and political factors, to answer questions that troubled the minds of generations long gone.” Of course, this is the approach of any atheist towards religion itself, but applied towards sects instead. What Yasir Qadhi does is take the atheist interpretations of the religious phenomenon and apply them to sects, schools of theology, and matters among Muslims themselves. And he says, “Why are we obsessed with aqidah when it comes to sifaat (i.e. Allah’s attributes)? Why is the sifaat an aqidah question? The sahaba (the companions) never debated sifaat!”

Of course, this is the first point and the main pillar of this audio, and it will appear that his question refutes his argument from its foundations, because the Companions, as well as the Khawarij, the Qadariyyah, and all the people agreed on one creed concerning Allah’s attributes.

He claims that our saying that this is the methodology of the Companions is merely “a back-projection of a later group onto them,” He says: “We don’t know what they actually believed. We’re just assuming.”

Also, he asks a rhetorical question: “Do I need to teach my kids the sifaat controversy? Do I need to brainwash and indoctrinate them with one school over the other?” Notice how he is mixing up two different things, and we will talk about the mixing up of these two things - and this is the game that many of the followers of the Al-Manar School play on the laypeople: mixing up between learning a specific aqidah concerning Allah’s attributes, and between defending this aqidah, which will lead you into debates and arguments and so on.

Today, Islam as a whole can be explained by the Hadith of Jibril, but defending Islam, that is, how to defend it against objections and how to respond and so on, this requires specialized courses and knowledge and other things, like what they used to do in Sinaat Al-Muhawir and others. It is called the Sinaat Al-Muhawir (i.e. the academy of interlocutors and debaters), it is not called the academy of Muslims. The ordinary Muslim does not need any of this.

The average Muslim already knows Islam without this, but then when the people of falsehood appear, we need to teach people. Also, when we need, for example, to teach our children grammar, even though the Bedouins of old did not need to teach his children grammar because they did not make mistakes that required correcting through grammar.

Also, for example, he says: “The Ibadis of Oman are Mu’tazili in creed. Their worship of Allah is no less, frankly it is better than most Sunni lands frankly.” Now when he says their worship to Allah, belief in the unseen is dropped from worship, and correct aqidah is dropped from worship. What is worship for him? Good morals. Or, political movements. This is the standard for Yasir Qadhi. This is what I talked about in “A Chat about the Al-Manar School.”¹

He says: “The Ibadis believe that the Quran is makhluq (i.e. created). Their grand mufti is on YouTube literally defending, and then saying: ‘But Sunnis, you guys made this a bigger issue than it needed to be. We still recite the Quran, take the Shahada’” You see what this is? The Jahmi Manari, who debates you on two levels at the same time: on one level he promotes his aqidah, and on the other level he says to you, “Akhi, why are you making a big deal out of it?” Even though he is defending the aqidah of people who are the ones who made a big deal out of it! The Ibadis believe that the Qur’an was created, and whoever does not believe that the Qur’an was created, in their view, is an anthropomorphist and a kafir.

This also happened to me once with a Palestinian Ash'ari. Some brothers were talking to me and forwarding his messages to me, and he was discussing on two levels at the same time: on one level he says that these issues are just minor issues and not that big of a deal and so on, and on the other level he defends his aqidah fiercely. This is very malicious, when his belief states that the other belief is anthropomorphism and kufr, even if he does not declare the individuals to be kuffar, or that the Sunnis are one sect only.

Yasir Qadhi says, “We don’t need the sifaat controversy to be good Muslims.” In short, we don’t need to believe in the sifaat to be good Islamic activists. That’s the truth. Otherwise, someone might come to you and say, “I don’t need religion to be a good person… I can be a polite person, I can be a respectful person.” There are a lot of Muslims who commit crimes, and there are a lot of irreligious people or buddhists etc, who are respectful.

Yasir Qadhi says, “The Mu’tazila, the main issue with us and them is qadar (i.e. predestination).” He says that they are “good people in the end.” Of course, also note that he is a person who does not understand reality. He says, “good people,” meaning, “as long as they are good and respectful to us, that’s it.” Who’s the center? He’s the center! That is, if a person is good to me, I will let him believe in a corrupt aqidah concerning Allah, as he pleases, no problem! The most important thing is that he is a good and respectful person to me. Well, even many of the People of the Book are good and respectful. The Qadariyyah, about whom Ibn Umar said what he said, were not bad people, but rather they were very good, polite, and respectful. Ibn Umar said, “if one of them has gold equivalent to Uhud and he spends it, Allah will not accept it from him until he believes in Divine decree.” See how he’s being egocentric?

He also said: “We must minimize the controversy at the level of the masses. This is what I’ve done.” We will talk about all of this later. Of course, at the level of the masses: for example, there is a man named “Asrar Rashid” in the West speaking and promoting the Maturidi aqidah. If I (the Salafi) keep quiet and minimize, the other ones will keep speaking, and then they will hog the stage! They will hog the stage, and become followed by as many people as possible.

He himself says that he “reached out to people on both sides” and said that “there is a genocide going on” and that they must “leave these issues!” See, now he is playing the same game as the secularists! So, now you are out in front of the people and criticizing both sides, saying that there is no saved group or victorious sect among you. Both sides will have to respond to you, despite the genocide going on!

This is like the secularist who plays the game of “secularism came to rule people away from their religious conflicts.” Well, you yourself are their opponent, Mr. Secularist. You are not a judge between them. You are on the opposite side from them!

A Muslim might come and say: “If I rule over Christians, they will not fight over sectarian grounds. Why? Because I am a Muslim, I disagree with all of them, so I will catch them and dominate them all.” This is the game that he plays: He comes to you and speaks to you as if he is absolved, but in reality he is a third party, and he uses these tactics to promote his point of view.

He also says very bluntly: “Allah didn't reveal Salafism, nor did he reveal Ash’arism.” Very nice! Of course, what is the danger in this argument? The danger in it is that it says that the entire nation was astray. Because the entire nation was at one time either Salafi or Ash’ari, and both say that only one of them is right, and one of them tells you the truth is within the Quran and the other tells you it is within reason, etc. So the reality of this argument is that the nation was astray, and that the Quran did not lead to the truth, and what led to the truth was only certain liberal theories and so on. So this argument is very dangerous!

He says, “I can show you the human elements in all of them.” He claims that Ibn Taymiyyah is no different from Al-Razi, Al-Ghazali, and others. He also said that Ibn Taymiyyah came up with a bunch of eccentric views and so on. This is the psychological process of demoralization that they always use, even among Arabic speakers, meaning that he comes to you and attacks Ibn Taymiyyah’s jurisprudential choices, and he does not mean these jurisprudential choices, but rather he means to break your spirit.

Ibn Taymiyyah has a beautiful statement refuting this, may Allah have mercy on him. He said that the people of hadith are not free from error on the individual level, but they do not unite in falsehood, and every falsehood in them is greater in others. That is why if you contemplate, for example, the jurisprudential errors found among the Salafis, you will find that they are greater in others. However, many of the young Salafis, in all honesty, judge the Salafis very strictly, while they judge others leniently by looking at the best of what they have, and this is a pathological condition found in many young Salafi.

He also said, “Imam Ahmad would allow tawassul (seeking intercession), Imam Ahmad would allow tabarruk (seeking blessings.)” Look at the absurdity! Imam Ahmad was attributed with saying that supplication and seeking blessings are permissible.

He says, “Ibn Taymiyyah comes along: the first person in human history to say: you cannot travel to the qabr of the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, with the intention of visiting the grave, that becomes bid’a and a stepping stone to shirk.” Of course, Ibn Taymiyyah denied that he said it the way his opponents distorted it. He said that what’s permissible is to travel to the Prophet’s Mosque, and that visiting the Prophet’s grave is merely a consequence. This is what Ibn Taymiyyah said. Ibn Taymiyyah forbade traveling to graves with the intention of visiting the graves themselves, and he was preceded in this, and we will discuss that Ibn Battah preceded him.

What happened with Yassir Qadhi here is that he used to follow Ibn Taymiyyah in many issues, then later he discovered Ibn Taymiyyah’s mistakes in some issues. This happens with many young Salafis! So what happens after that? He develops a kind of hostility towards Ibn Taymiyyah to the point that he sometimes refutes Ibn Taymiyyah’s in things that he was right about. I even saw some sheikhs saying that the issue of traveling is not a matter of aqidah! Even though Ibn Battah mentioned it in his book Al-Ibanah Al-Sughra. This is the outcome of abandoning the books of the Salaf!

He also brought up the issue of Ibn Qudamah with this issue of traveling, and so on.

So, these were some of the most important doubts and issues mentioned on this podcast..

What we should understand before we respond to some of these doubts is that: Today, it is agreed upon by everyone (irreligious people, Islamic activists, etc.) that the state of the old Sunni Salafi aqidah - this state is completely rejected! Because in their view it disrupts every worldly project... and takes people far away from that. That is why they almost drop the subject of belief in the unseen.

Now when Yasir Qadhi says that the Companions did not speak about the topic of Allah’s attributes, the first response to this statement is that - on the contrary - the Companions did speak by stating the apparent meaning of the texts, and the standard state, the default state of the Muslim is that he believes in the apparent meaning of the texts, and he has no objection to them. The first to object to the apparent meaning of the texts and say that they must be interpreted were the people of Kalam, and they said that stating the apparent meaning of the texts is anthropomorphism, but they do not have a word from the Companions that indicates this meaning!

Now can someone say, “There is no word from the Companions that proves the scale on the Day of Judgment”? He will be told, “Akhi, their mere narration of the hadith of the scale and their lack of interpretation indicates that they believe in that.” Right? Right! Well, the same applies to Allah’s attributes! Can someone come and say, “There is no word from the Companions that they believe in the Preserved Tablet, the Pen, the Bridge of as-Sirat, and other things”? We say that their narration of these hadiths without objection indicates that they believe in their apparent meanings. This is indicated by what the likes of Al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam understood when he said that the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, approved of the Companions’ anthropomorphism. Also, the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, asked the slave girl, “Where is Allah?” She said, “In heaven.” This was her answer, and all mutakallimun do not say this answer, so it’s over! And the Companion who said, “Does the Lord laugh?” The Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, said, “Yes.” He said, “We shall never be deprived of good by a Lord Who laughs!” So, here it is very clear that the companions believed in these apparent meanings, and the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, approved of it. That is why Al-Ghazali said in his book “Iljam Al-Awam ‘an Ilm Al-Kalam” that only one in a thousand people believes the same creed as his… and Al-Sanusi said that “the common people do not believe in the belief that we believe.” And truly, the common people do not believe in it, which is why many of them resorted to the way of takhyil (i.e. imagination or illusion.) He says that the prophets spoke to people with these apparent meanings because people feel more comfortable with these apparent meanings, the apparent meanings of Allah’s attributes and so on. This means that people believe in them, otherwise how would they be comfortable with something they are uncertain about? So the companions, according to you, were just a bunch of Bedouins and nobodies and so on… So their souls were comfortable with these apparent meanings and they believed in them!

As for the issue of saying that the Qur’an is created: it is divided into three issues that are linked to each other: If it is proven that the speech of Allah is not created, this means that Allah has speech and that His speech is one of His actions and that He has voluntary actions. If it is proven that He has voluntary actions, this means that He can speak whatever He wants whenever He wants, and this means that the Qur’an is not created. You see, all of these issues are linked to each other, so there is no person who says that the Qur’an is created except that he fundamentally denies the voluntary actions of Allah!

Also, it has been proven that Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud believed that the speech of Allah is not created, when he said, “Whoever swears by the Qur’an would have to make an expiation for each verse.” And an oath is not binding on created things, according to the consensus of the jurists! This indicates that the Companions knew these issues.

In fact, when they say that Companions did not speak about this, well, yes, they did not speak about it because the Jahmites did not appear until later! And when the Qadariyyah appeared, Abdullah ibn Umar spoke about them and said that they were kuffar. The Qadariyyah did not exist in the time of Umar, and they did not exist in the time of Abu Bakr. So all Abdullah ibn Umar did was to bring up the apparent meanings that the Companions narrated and approved of regarding the subject of predestination and he applied the ruling on those who disagreed with them, and this is how we apply it on others.

Anas bin Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, when a man came out denying the Prophet’s Cistern, he said, “Whoever denies the Cistern will not drink from it.”

Same thing concerning seeing Allah on the Day of Judgment, can we say that the Companions did not believe in it even though they narrated all these hadiths? This is not possible, and that is why there is a disagreement with the Ibadis and so on...

This is the first point, that originally the Companions believed in the apparent meanings of what they narrated. Secondly, there are explicit expressions such as “where is Allah” “in heaven”, and “does the Lord laugh?...we shall never be deprived of good by a Lord Who laughs”. Thirdly, originally the mutakallimun used to say: “the lay people in our time do not believe in our creed nor do they understand it, and our creed is not derived from the texts,”... and the Companions had only one reference, which is the texts. Fourthly, many mutakallimun affirmed takhyil, meaning that the prophets addressed people with the imaginations and illusions that these people have that there are affirmed attributes. And, indeed, the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, addressed the Companions with this speech, which means that the Companions’ creed was actually affirmation. Fifthly, ta’weel (interpretation) or tafweed (delegation) is not the original orthodox position, but rather belief in the apparent meaning. Sixth point, there are matters that everyone agrees that the Companions believed in them, and all they have is that the companions narrated, such as the Cistern, the Scale, the Bridge, the torment of the grave, the bliss of the grave, Munkar and Nakir, and so on. The same applies to the issues of the attributes. Seventh point, there is evidence for affirming speech and voluntary actions and other things. Eighth point, the Prophet (peace & blessings be upon him) - and even the Qur’an before him - called us to follow the companions and the straight path, and people at a certain time had nothing but these doctrines, they had nothing but the doctrine of those who affirm the attributes and declare the Jahmites to be kuffar and the doctrine of the Jahmites who declare the people of the Sunnah to be kuffar, there was nothing else! And it is not possible that no one in the entire nation followed the Companions. Ninth point, we come to the Ibadis, whom Yasir Qadhi praises, they were present at the time of the companions, and the Ibadis themselves criticize a group of the companions who are not few, since they follow the approach of the Khawarij, so they criticize Uthman and Ali and... This is a very clear issue! So why do you not criticize the Ibadis? This indicates that you - even if the companions spoke and criticized this group - you will not criticize them!

Also, for example, the Murji'ah who said that faith does not increase or decrease - and that actions are not part of faith - and among them are the people of Ra’i and most of the people of Kalam: It is established that some of the companions said that faith increases and decreases, like when it was said, "Come, let us increase in faith" and so on, and many of their sayings have been collected. Do you consider them innovators ? Do you consider them misguided? He is reducing the entire topic to the issue of Allah’s attributes because they are belittled and underestimated today in the mentality of contemporary people, as they have nothing to do with food and sex and human lives and so on... They do not glorify them nor consider them a thing. I seek refuge in Allah!

So, it is not reasonable that the companions do not have a statement on all these issues, and they do have statements on them, so is the one who disagreed with them equal to the one who followed them? This is another point.

Also, when someone says to you, “So-and-so has good morals and so on…” Ibn Umar responded to this and said, “if one of them has gold equivalent to Uhud and he spends it.” Rather, when the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, spoke about the Khawarij, he said, “their prayer, fasting and deeds will make you think little of your own prayer, fasting and deeds.” Rather, absolving those who have deviant views about Allah’s attributes requires absolving the Khawarij. Who said this? The companion Abu Bakrah, when he was told, “So-and-so did ijtihaad,” he said, “The people of Harura did ijtihaad.” So, one person understands the texts in one way and another person understands the texts in another, and this is concerning the greatest purpose.

The next thing is when he says that it is not a condition for being a good person or a good Muslim to believe in the attributes. Allah (subḥānahū wa-ta'ālā) said:

﴿ٱلَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱلْغَيْبِ وَيُقِيمُونَ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَـٰهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ ﴿٣﴾ ﴾

Those who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We have provided for them.

The Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah…” Just as belief in destiny, according to Abdullah ibn Umar, and among the companions, is an essential condition for being a good Muslim, so belief in the attributes of Allah (subḥānahū wa-ta'ālā) - as they are - is an essential condition. Who made it that way? The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him! He asked the servant girl, “Where is Allah?” She said, “In heaven.” This is an essential condition: belief in the unseen, submission to the texts,,, this is an essential condition! There are also things that nullify deeds, related to belief in the unseen.

Also when he says, “You, the Sunnis, have exaggerated the issue,” you see that even the early Ibadis who did not believe in the creation of the Qur’an praised the positions of Imam Ahmad during the mihna. So, this issue was held in high esteem by the entire nation, and was considered to be part of Tawhid. Who no longer considers it to be part of Tawhid? Who? Those who follow the Al-Manar School since its emergence!

There is the Tawhid of Names and Attributes: ad-Darimi wrote a book entitled “refuting the stubborn Jahmi al-Marisi regarding what he fabricated against Allah regarding Tawhid”, Ibn Khuzaymah wrote “The Book of Tawhid”, Al-Bukhari wrote “The Book of Tawhid”, even Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi wrote “The Book of Tawhid”, all of them are about the issues of attributes! So, to belittle the issues of attributes, is an awful innovation. That is an awful innovation!

Also regarding the issue of travelling, you know that today most of those who travel to graves and seek blessings from them and do this and that, most of them without duality - from first to last - call upon the inhabitants of the graves and seek help from them and so on. And it is established that Imam Ahmad stated that touching the grave is forbidden. I wrote an article about touching the grave and wiping the back of the head². Some people even claimed that there is consensus on the prohibition of touching the grave.

As for the issue of Tawassul (i.e. intercession) being attributed to him (i.e. Ahmad), that is mentioned in Al-Marrudhi’s Mansak on intercession, and the most famous to spread this is Ibn Taymiyyah.

Firstly, Salafis do not say that Tawassul is shirk. Salafis say that istighatha (i.e. seeking help) from other than Allah is shirk, and Imam Ahmad agrees with them on that. One of his evidences against the Jahmites that the speech of Allah is not created is the hadith “I seek refuge in the Perfect Words of Allah from the evil of what He has created.” and he said “One should not seek refuge in a created being.” and he said that whoever says that the beautiful names of Allah are created is calling upon a created being. Ahmad declared him a kafir, and al-Shafi’i declared him a kafir, and Khalaf ibn Hisham al-Bazzar declared him a kafir. As for the issue of Tawassul (i.e. intercession), what was narrated from Imam Ahmad was about seeking intercession through the Prophet, and this narration obliges all of them to criticize it, because they do not have a chain of transmission to al-Marrudhi’s book “al-Mansak.” So if there are narrations from Ahmad with a chain of transmission and most of the Hanbalis prove them, like in “Kitab al-Sunnah” by Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad and “Al-Radd ‘ala al-Jahmiyyah wa al-Zanadiqa” and these people criticize them, then by the same logic for “al-Mansak” by al-Marrudhi, bring me a narration from the early Hanbalis narrating it! It is hardly found.

Also regarding the topic of seeking blessings, what has been reported from Imam Ahmad is hardly proven. And, I have an article called “Cutting out the words of Ibn Muflih on seeking blessings in two passages.”³ Also, it has been reported that when they came to seek blessings from him and touch him (i.e. Ahmad), he said, “Where did you get this from?” And, the word blessing and seeking blessings among the Salaf has various meanings… such as, “This is not the first of your blessings, O family of Abu Bakr!” The meaning of blessing is: general good. For example, you see a righteous man and you benefit from seeing him because you see his enthusiasm and activity and you are encouraged by that. They say this, they say “People seek blessings by seeing so-and-so,” meaning if he is seen, people benefit from that. And, there are other things related to touching for blessings, and this hardly happens and there is no trace of it from the predecessors except for some narrations that are generally not proven.

As for the issue of Dhat Anwat, the issue of seeking blessings from a tree, the issue of the noble companions who found the grave of Daniel and concealed it from the people, the hadith “Do not make my grave a place of celebration” and the hadith “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians who took the graves of their prophets as places of worship”… even al-Nawawi says that the Tree of Ridwan was concealed so that the Arabs would not take it and worship it. This is something that is happening in the ummah - unfortunately - and the Salafis have rejected it vehemently - and the story of Dhat Anwat is well-known - and they are right.

But what do these people do? They come to some details, to some slips, to some narrations, and they leave the clear, major rulings that have been upheld. For example, in the Sharia, innovations are reprehensible, additional innovations are reprehensible, Even if the intention of its owner was good. A companion sees a man raising his hands on the pulpit and says to him "May Allah cut them off." Because innovations are rejected! Also: Ibn Masoud's denunciation of the people who sit in circles, Omar's denunciation of the Rajabis (who fasted the entire month of Rajab), and dozens of narrations from the companions. Even the subject of traveling to graves: Omar has a narration that proves Ibn Taymiyyah's doctrine on the subject of traveling. When he heard that people were going to a certain place and traveling there, what did Omar say? He said, “A pilgrimage like the pilgrimage to the House?” and attacked them. This “a pilgrimage like the pilgrimage to the House” is said exactly for these matters.

But today, what Yasir Qadhi said was said before by Hassan Al-Kattani, and someone else said something similar. What do they do? They bring the slips and mistakes of some who are affiliated to the Sunnah, and they present them in the same light as the far-fetched misguidance of the Ash'aris, like the Kalam of the Ash'aris and others, which is kufr. For example, in the means leading to shirk, like Al-Dhahabi, for example, he does not permit seeking help from anyone other than Allah, but he permits, for example, supplicating to Allah at graves. This is a problematic mistake, and serves as pretext to shirk. But he himself considers supplicating to Allah at a man's grave as not equal to supplicating the man in the grave. But they come and mix up the two situations, and say to you, "Look, this is a grave worshiper, his situation is like the others." Although we ourselves differentiate, and we say this is a pretext to shirk and this is shirk. So those who fell into one are not like those who fell into the other. It is possible that some people may confuse some narrations or confuse matters or such and such. This is a known issue. Even if someone came and declared Ibn Taymiyyah to be mistaken in the entire issue of Tawassul, and entirely in the issue of traveling, and yet he agrees on the subject of Istighatha. Seeking help from other than Allah is: major shirk. So, he remains upon what you fear: that he has a firm creed, and that he agreed on the sound creed concerning Allah’s attributes, and on attacking the deviants regarding that, and in iman and in predestination and so on. So, he remains upon what you fear: which is having a firm creed, that there is a creed, and based on this creed there are people who are raised and there are people who are lowered. Based on this creed there are those who enter the Sunnah and there are those who leave the Sunnah. Based on this creed there are those who enter Islam and those who leave Islam.

We all know very well that there are sins of different severity. There is major polytheism, there is apparent innovation, there is hidden practical innovation, there is jurisprudential error, and so on. For example, Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) refuted the people of Ra’i and defeated them, so we consider him an imam of the people of Sunnah, an imam of the people of Hadith. And Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad responded to him in issues, and Al-Shafi'i himself, there are issues on which it was attributed to him to violate the consensus in some scholarly issues. But, it was because of an unintended misinterpretation on his part, i.e. in a consensus that is not very apparent, such as the issue that he believes that a woman touching a man absolutely always nullifies ablution. The rulings of the companions on this are one of these two: those who say touching nullifies if it is with lust, and those who say that touching does not nullify it at all. So Imam Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) here, yes, he made a mistake, and this is not from the same category as the mistakes of the people of Ra’i, but rather a mistake of a man of Hadith, that does not negate his knowledge and his leadership in refuting the people of Ra’i and other things, and also this mistake must be refuted, despite it not being of the highest importance. And this is the problem: Nowadays, many people when we talk about an Ash’ari person - meaning an actual Ash’ari, who believes in the Ash’ari creed, and agrees with them in their principles or in most of their principles, and if we classify him, he may be considered one of the more extreme ones, and more deviant that some of their great imams - Then he talks to you as if he were talking about someone who made a mistake in jurisprudence. The levels of mistakes vary. And to explain the story to you and clarify it to you in a way that - in sha’ Allah - will make the matter very clear to you: We are all sinners, Notice! We all have sins, right? But there is a difference between a depraved, immoral person, and a person who only has private sins. There is a difference between a disbeliever, etc… Basically, sometimes the same sin differs from person to person: One drinks alcohol and invites people to do so and holds big parties and calls it being a “bon vivant” and encourages it and so on, and another drinks alcohol while he feels guilty and says “Oh Allah, forgive me.” Are they the same? They are not the same!

And this is the idea: Their game is to put all the mistakes on the same level. And they can’t. Why? They exclude mistakes against humans, and the mistake that you declare a person an innovator or a kafir - although their principle requires that. It requires that even declaring someone an innovator and an unbeliever is a matter of ijtihad, why? If the asl (i.e. the fundamental issue) is subject to ijtihad, how can its branching issue not be subject to ijtihad? The asl is that the sound belief in the attributes is such and such, and that there is a saved group and a victorious sect, and that we are the people of the Sunnah and others are people of innovations... This is what virtually all of the scholars of Islam have said. This is fundamental. This - if you contemplate it - you will see that it is a complete and comprehensive fundamental issue, this is the asl. But he says to you, “No, I consider it like the jurisprudential issues,” while in reality there is a consensus that not all issues are like the jurisprudential issues. Rather, not all the jurisprudential matters are on the same level. This is why many of them can hardly comprehend, and this is the problem of involving the lay people in this topic.

For example, Imam Ahmad said, “The people of Madinah are not to be refuted the same way people of Ra’i are.” Like what Al-Awza’i said, “We do not blame Abu Hanifa for having a ra’i, i.e. an opinion. We all have opinions, but we blame him for the hadith that comes to him from the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, and he contradicts it for another.” There is a difference between a scholar who did not know about a hadith or it reached him through a weak chain of transmission, and another who has corrupt rules with which he rejects hadiths. They’re not the same. I will give you an example: A man says, “Harwalah/Running is impossible for Allah, and even if the hadith affirmed it, I will not accept it and will interpret it.” Another man says, “The hadith that was mentioned about running is weak, and if it was authentic, I would have accepted it.” These are not the same! And another one says, “If the hadith indicated running as the apparent meaning, I would have affirmed it, but its apparent meaning does not indicate that, because it talks about drawing closer spiritually and so on.” These are not the same, and that’s the detailed explanation!

Ishaq ibn Rahuyeh said: “Only an innovator or a weak-minded person would reject it” when he was asked about a group of hadiths about Allah’s attributes. Ali bin Abi Talib said: “Two types of people will perish because of me.” This is clear. The one who curses Ali bin Abi Talib and does not harm other Muslims, what is the right position towards him? This argument that Yasir Qadhi is proposing is the same argument that Ahmed Daadoush is proposing when he says: “If it were up to me, I would burn the books of creed...” It is the same as saying “All of these books of creed are full of misguidance.”

Now some of them, what are they saying? They say that the so-called Haddadis are attacking the scholars. See the argument of Yasir Qadhi, or even the argument of Ahmed Daadoush? This is the greatest attack on the scholars! Because he considered the books of the people of Sunnah and the books of the people of innovation all to be the same.

Also, about the claim that these creeds are all mere human works shaped by cultural and social factors… This is a well-known heretical interpretation. Why is this heretical interpretation resorted to? It is resorted to if a person believes that there is no truth that came down from heaven, neither in the disagreements of the people of Islam nor in other matters, so he starts to interpret. And indeed, of course, people could come to the revelation and the truth that came down and add to it some of their whims and some of their problems. But this is something that people will not agree on, and this is what Sheikh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, said, that the people of hadith do not agree on falsehood, and they have general topics found in the books of creed, and this is what they agreed on. There are matters in which some of them have made mistakes in their judgment, especially in matters of dealing with people and individuals and so on, some of them make some mistakes, sometimes in reasoning they reason with a reasoning that contains an error, sometimes they reason with a weak hadith while there’s another that is authentic, etc. But the fundamentals of the creed are correct! So this argument - all together - implies that no one understood Islam and that there is no difference between the people of Hadith and the people of Kalam. Whoever said that reason takes precedence over revelation and whoever said that revelation takes precedence over reason are all the same thing… Or that there is no contradiction between reason and revelation… All the same thing. This argument is one of the most dangerous arguments, and it is atheism in disguise! And I do not tolerate this... This is atheism in disguise. I did an episode in “A Chat about the Al-Manar School”¹ about the idea of religious tolerance and how it started the spread of atheism in Europe, one of the most important issues!

Many people talk nonstop about Freemasonry... You see, this is the idea of Freemasonry! Freemasonry has no hostility to religion directly, in fact they do not accept a non-religious person, but Freemasonry has hostility to religion which has Walaa and Baraa, i.e. loyalty and disavowal, in which there are ideological battles... So when religion turns into a reformist and social vision like any other idea... This social reformist vision will also be subject to ijtihad! it will be subject to ijtihad: Should we fight such-and-such war or not? Should we start such-and-such revolution or not? It will also be subject to considerations of interest: Should we compromise and give up such-and-such part of Islam to capitalism or do we not give it up? Here, that’s it, the series of your tribulations will begin, after you have put your creed on the line, the rest will also be on the line. This is very clear. I mean, who now denies the punishment for apostasy? When did the denial of the punishment for apostasy appear in Islam? After the emergence of the Al-Manar School, which viewed the belief in this way! When did the denial of stoning for adultery appear in this way, other than the Khawarij? I mean, the Khawarij had a corrupt principle in which they denied wiping over the socks and denied such and such... And among the things that they denied was stoning, not out of repulsion, but out of consistency in the scholarly methodology, in a subgroup of Khawarij. But in our time, no! You’ll find someone accepting things that the Khawarij don't accept... and he comes to stoning and rejects it! Who rejected the miracles of the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, in their physical nature? Who denied the hadith about the bewitching of the Prophet peace & blessings be upon him? Who has a problem with the rulings on women in Islam? Who did all of this, and more?

Now they are wrapping it up for you as “Ibn Hajar & al-Nawawi”… By the way, he also played this card, the card of Ibn Hajar, al-Nawawi, al-Qurtubi, and so on… he played it in this context. Today, many people raise the card in front of you like this, claiming to defend certain scholars, and then after that they bring down these scholars and other scholars in their creedal legacy. I mean, if an Ash’ari comes and uses this card of naming some famous Ash’ari scholars to promote his creed, this would be understandable. Unlike a person who originally sees that these scholars are a bunch of fools, who have glorified issues that are not worthy of glorification... And this idea is common among many people today. This is the idea that many people are hiding behind. What Yasir Qadhi said, many people conceal it, but since he’s in the West he’s more comfortable saying it. Many people conceal it, but this becomes evident, for example, in his view that any creedal assertion is naive! Any creedal assertion! For example, when someone says, “Whoever says the Qur’an is created is a kafir!” he laughs at him secretly to himself, thinking, “Look at these naive people, they follow Ahmad ibn Hanbal and they follow so-and-so… They’re naive!” as if he is the one who understands. It’s the same mentality of the atheist when he sees someone praying or speaking about creed or preaching to people… He considers himself to be the wise one, but in reality (ألا إنهم هم السفهاء) “Indeed, it is they who are fools!” He does not know that he is a fool.

If the Muslims, over the course of 1400 years, did not know that nor reason nor the Quran and Sunnah would lead them to the absolute truth in the issues of Allah’s attributes, or lead them to the fact that these issues are not absolute and definitive... So how will you convince humanity of your point of view? What is this nonsense? Assuming that your idea is correct, why has humanity rejected this idea for all this time? With your almost atheist mentality, you must be saying that humans are programmed to be fanatical and ideological, meaning that this is part of their fitra, their nature. Of course, atheists claim that there is no such thing as fitra, they say that there is something called programming within humans. This programming leads them to survive. Of course, this is from the foolishness of the atheists, because this is the fitra from Allah! The nature that Allah places in us, so that we may achieve what He wills from us, but they are fools! And if you stand against this “programming”, everyone will curse you, so what do you benefit? A reward in the afterlife? If you say, “I am sure that they are all wrong,” then by your logic you could also be wrong. You might say “They were influenced by their environments and societies,” like Kamal Al-Haidari and others also say… Well, then why wouldn’t you be influenced by your environment and society? Meaning, if there had not been a first, second, and third wave of feminism, would your choices on women’s issues have been the same? If the defeat of the Nazis and the fall of the Soviet Union leading to American hegemony had not occurred, would your views have been the same? I mean, only the early salaf who lived more than a thousand years ago in various social, political, and economic circumstances, only they are influenced by their societies and environments, and we are not influenced?

Honestly, my problem is not with Yasir Qadhi 100%. Yasir Qadhi is a man who people have washed their hands of. But my problem is with many of the students of knowledge who, until now, we do not understand whether they agree with him in his argument? Or do they have another point of view? Or what’s going on exactly? Because we do not understand what they want. And if that is the case, how can they respond to him, according to their principles? Now I responded based on my principles... I will not borrow the principles of others to respond with them... because some people all they do is object to what you say, without explaining their own rules and the specific school of thought on which they are based, which is confusing. Such as the one who’s enthusiastically promoting his aqidah and then says to you, “You’ve made a big deal out of it, You’ve made a big deal out of it...” as if it was not their ancestors who flogged the Sunnis, killed them, and committed evil crimes against them! Of course it’s a big deal, as it is related to Allah ('azza wa-jal). The issues of Allah’s attributes are in fact related even to responding to atheists, because proving voluntary actions is a fundamental issue in formulating the evidence that we will use to prove the existence of Allah and the origination of the world and responding to objections and so on and so forth. This is a very well-known issue: Jahm bin Safwan developed his creed when he was responding to heretics, but he responded in the wrong way, and he saw that it was the only correct way, and the Sunnis saw that his method was kufr and that he responded to deviance with deviance, and that there is another way that is correct.

We see that creed is fixed and absolute, just as is the case with prayer, evidences of prophethood, zakat, and so on, and many things that everyone knows by necessity that the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, brought, and that there is a group of people who deviated, and that the deviation of the likes of the Ash’aris, Maturidis, and others is no different from the deviation of the Khawarij that existed in the early era, or the deviation of the extremist Sufis that we see today, or the deviation of the Ismailis or Nusayris… By kind, meaning, considering the kind, that there are those who - despite their affiliation with the religion - distorted the Quran and the Sunnah.

Even the Qarmatian esoteric interpretations do not differ from the interpretations of these people, except that this issue is only in the attributes, just as it does not differ from the new readings of Islam and the readings of the Modernists… We believe that they’re no different, and that these are not comparable at all to jurisprudential differences, and even jurisprudential differences are not all fair game, meaning that not every jurisprudential issue is open to choice, rather there are issues in which there is consensus and issues in which there is substantial evidence… Even in our differences with the Shi’a, jurisprudential issues are raised such as the takbir at funerals, such as the issue of temporary marriage… There are many topics, even in the way we pray, we differ with the Imami Shi’a. For example, people differed even in the description of the Prophet’s prayer, and the description of ablution. For example, Ibadis have an ablution that differs from my ablution and the ablution of the Shi’a… We know that only one of these descriptions was transmitted from the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, and the rest are not correct. How did we deal with this difference? Did the Prophet, peace & blessings be upon him, abandon us?

If Allah said,

﴿فَإِن تَنَـٰزَعْتُمْ فِى شَىْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ ﴾

If you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger.

And “over anything,” means this is general! This is what Allah ('azza wa-jal) has commanded us to do. Does Allah ('azza wa-jal) command us to do this when there is nothing in the Qur’an and Sunnah that settles our dispute? “Refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day.” How, if there is nothing in the Qur’an and Sunnah that settles our dispute? Does the speaker have anything to prove it? If he speaks, at best, he distorts some of the narrations of the Salaf… How can these issues, which the entire nation has considered to be issues of Tawhid and Aqidah, and so on, and among the most important issues, these issues… How can there be nothing from Allah and the Messenger to prove them? How? And if you say there is: How, if the nation has not been guided to that? And if you say the nation has been guided, then how can they be at this level of contradiction while they are all on the right path?

This is why the reality of these people’s belief, like the belief of the atheists, is that there is no absolute truth, and that truth follows belief. This is what Ibn Taymiyyah spoke about, and this is the statement that - in jurisprudence - is considered to be “begins with sophistry and ends with heresy.” I have an audio entitled “introduction to the equality of evidence”. I will summarize some of it: Even in matters of ijtihad, there is right and there is wrong: “When the judge passes a judgement in which he strived and was correct, then he receives two rewards. And when he judges and is mistaken, then he receives one reward.” There is right even in matters of ijtihad! And in controversial matters, of course, there is right and there is wrong. In creed, there is right and there is wrong. In kufr and Islam, there is right and there is wrong.

There are people whose sophistry began with them saying that there is no truth or falsehood in the issues of ijtihad, and that they are all right. And there are people who have exaggerated to the point of controversial issues. There are people who exaggerated to the point of bid’a and Sunnah: the Murji’ah, the Khawarij, the Qadariyyah, the Shi’ah, the Nawasib… they are all right. And there are people who have exaggerated to the point of religions! And these are Zanaadiqah! And Ibn Taymiyyah attributed this to Ibn Arabi, that the truth follows belief.

Otherwise, why did the idea of the Abrahamic Family House and such appear in our time? And why did the ordeal of asking Allah to have mercy on the kuffar appear in our time? Why only in our time? It’s because all these doors were opened. These doors were opened wide. These dangerous doors: were opened wide. Like what Yasir Qadhi does, when he tells you that belief evolves! Like in the theory of evolution, that the human brain evolves, so what was true today may become false tomorrow… Of course this is self-refuting, because by this logic the theory of evolution itself may become false in the future… This is self-refuting. But these are the exact same tools of the modernists!

And this is one of the strange things that I have seen in the past years, that many of those who are affiliated to the Sunnah or those who are affiliated to Islam use the modernist tools that the modernists use with religions and to explain human behavior, and explain the differences between different creeds throughout history, and they do not notice that they are using the same tools, these atheistic tools, which are sophistic, which beg the question, and which assume that there is no objective truth, and that only what they say is the objective truth, without any evidence, and then they explain everything based on it. For example, he says to you: “How did religions appear?” He now assumes that religions did not come down from heaven along with humans, or that this religion is not a fitra, an innate disposition in humans. And then, he begins to explain... and explains why religions appeared among people... and that humans were initially atheists and a blank slate. Of course, no one knows how humans were initially, according to their sciences. We know the story of Adam when he was sent down and so on... We know this based on revelation, but according to their sciences, no one knows. But he is biased towards a certain result considering his hedonistic atheism, so he explains it like this.

These same people sit and tell you: “There is a human element…and there is so-and-so…and Ibn Qudamah said such-and-such…” What if Ibn Qudamah was not a Salafi to begin with? He will bring you, for example, a slip of Ibn Qudamah and generalize it to all Hanbalis! This is what some of them did. He will bring you any Hanbali man who made any slip, and generalize it. Some of them bring something from Abu Ismail al-Ansari al-Harawi while we are discussing the ruling on the Ash’ari sect, for example, or the ruling on the Murji’ah… If you remove Abu Ismail al-Ansari from all of history, and without reaching a conclusion in your ruling on him… In reality, he does not resemble either of those, and the discussion of the issue was done and dusted before he was born! But he brings these problems for the sake of confusion and sophistry. He tells you, “Akhi, the Companions did not speak about Allah’s attributes.” Then he praises the groups that have a negative position on the Companions, because he does not care about the Companions, and this issue of the Ibadis exposed them! The issue is not an issue of companions.

And on the issue of seeing Allah on the day of judgement: Can you say that the Companions did not have clear words on it, for example? The Sahaba and the Tabi’in? Or that the Qur’an and Sunnah are not clear on this issue? Or can you say that denying seeing Allah on the day of judgement was not based on Kalam principles? And that the Mutakallimun did not base all their creeds on a specific reading of the Qur’an and Sunnah? If you make all of these claims, then you are stubborn beyond reason! Or do you want to say, for example, that the words of the Salaf - such as Bukhari, Al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Al-Darimi, and others - do not clearly contradict the words of the Ash'aris, especially the later ones? As they said: "The Jahmiyyah said that the hand is power!"

In fact, I am not surprised that Ernest Renan said to Jamal al-Din al-Afghani - who is the teacher of Muhammad Abduh, the teacher of Muhammad Rashid Rida, the teacher of Hassan al-Banna - and Jamal al-Afghani was a Rafidi, and I do not claim that Rashid Rida was like Jamal al-Afghani, not at all. He was much better than him, and yet there were remnants left in him. I am not surprised that Ernest Renan said to Jamal al-Din al-Afghani: “You speak as if you are an absolute atheist,” because there are really arguments that appeared after “Al-Manar” among Muslims, that are identical to atheism! I mean, do you want to say that I can believe whatever I believe about Allah, whether the Salafi creed or the Ash’ari creed, which both contradict each other, and that this will not be reflected in my behavior? and that no belief is better for my heart than another belief?

Didn’t the Prophet (peace & blessings be upon him) say, “Beware! There is a piece of flesh in the body, if it becomes good the whole body becomes good but if it gets spoiled the whole body gets spoiled and that is the heart”? This means that the person whose heart is attached to the correct and sound belief will not be like the other person whose heart is attached to a corrupt belief. But to say that the Qur’an indicates both beliefs to the same degree, and each contradicts and reviles the other? This is what an atheist would say! This is what someone who fundamentally wants to attack the Qur’an would say! This is not what a Muslim would say, ever! Of course, they do not pay attention to such implications, but you see, these implications are inseparable!

Lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata 'illā bi-llāh!