What is the truth regarding the scholars' statements on the issue of the succession of events?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Who has a question here? Please, go ahead.
The questioner : My question is on three branches; is that acceptable?
The Shaykh : Three branches?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Mention one branch, then another, then another.
The questioner : What is the truth regarding the scholars' statements on the issue of the succession of events?
The Shaykh : We have also spoken about this in some recent gatherings. I think this discussion took place in the gathering of Abu Ma'adh. The answer, in brief:
We do not see the validity of this view for two reasons:
The first reason is that it conflicts with affirming the first created thing. Affirming the first created thing without specifying or defining it is, it seems, a matter of consensus, even among those who said that events have no beginning.
The second reason, and the most important one, is that the hadith specifying the first created thing is authentic from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is his saying:Mishkat al-Masabih 94Sahīh (Zubair `Aliza'i). The one who says that events have no beginning and that there is a succession into eternity explicitly says: there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and so on until there is no beginning. How does this agree with his (peace and blessings be upon him) aforementioned saying: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3319Sahih (Darussalam)!
In addition to this, this view did not come from the Salaf, but is only the understanding of some of the imams of the Khalaf. It involves speaking about a matter of the unseen, which is a very serious matter, based merely on opinion and independent legal reasoning. As we all know, regarding matters of the unseen, we should not expand upon them; rather, we must stop at the text, and the matter is ended. Please, go ahead.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. I have not recently encountered this hadith. In what we have read, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim say that this wording came:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3319Sahih (Darussalam), so "first" is in the accusative case as a circumstantial phrase. But now I am asking: are the narrations established with the first wording?
The Shaykh : It is this, and I clarified it long ago in *Takhrij Sharh al-Tahawiyyah*, where I refuted this interpretation. As for the Arabic style, you know your style better than I do. I am attached to your language, so if I am correct in anything, I am one who has become Arabized, whereas you are the Arabs and you are the original.
The questioner : No, no, if it is established.
The Shaykh : No, according to your statement: the narration is like this:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3319Sahih (Darussalam) is a subject and predicate, is a new sentence, so there is no accusative case here, but rather it is raised as a subject and raised as a predicate, then a new sentence completing the first statement.
The questioner : If the narration is established, it is possible, meaning, to consider it a circumstantial phrase and proceed with the Arabic grammatical possibilities.
The Shaykh : If it is established!
The questioner : If it is established.
The Shaykh : But as it came in some reports, and without blame: "Place the 'if' at that star".
Then do not forget, I said earlier something of importance: The scholars differed on the first created thing, and I pointed out that the one who says that events have no beginning narrated this disagreement and preferred the view contrary to this hadith based on what arose in his mind that: "first" is in the accusative case as a circumstantial phrase, and he said: the first created thing is the Throne. Thus, the entire claim is refuted, and this is important, as is not hidden from you.
The questioner : He does not say the first created thing is the first created thing; he says it is prior to the Pen, he does not say it is the first created thing.
The Shaykh : No, he does not say that. He narrates the issue of the disagreement among scholars in defining the first created thing, and he prefers that the first created thing is the Throne. Yes, that is right. And now I am asking permission from the honorable Shaykh, it is now nine o'clock. That is it, it is over. May Allah bless you. Be gentle, be gentle. Do you permit it, O honorable Shaykh?
The questioner : At your ease.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : I say: At your ease.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.
The questioner : My question is on three branches; is that acceptable?
The Shaykh : Three branches?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Mention one branch, then another, then another.
The questioner : What is the truth regarding the scholars' statements on the issue of the succession of events?
The Shaykh : We have also spoken about this in some recent gatherings. I think this discussion took place in the gathering of Abu Ma'adh. The answer, in brief:
We do not see the validity of this view for two reasons:
The first reason is that it conflicts with affirming the first created thing. Affirming the first created thing without specifying or defining it is, it seems, a matter of consensus, even among those who said that events have no beginning.
The second reason, and the most important one, is that the hadith specifying the first created thing is authentic from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is his saying:
The first thing God created was the pen. He told it to write and when it asked Him what it should write He told it to write what was decreed, so it wrote what had taken place and what would take place to all eternity.
أول ما خلق الله القلم فقال: اكتب، قال: ما اكتب ؟ قال: اكتب ما هو كائن إلى يوم القيامةthe first of what Allah created was the Pen
أول ما خلق الله القلمIn addition to this, this view did not come from the Salaf, but is only the understanding of some of the imams of the Khalaf. It involves speaking about a matter of the unseen, which is a very serious matter, based merely on opinion and independent legal reasoning. As we all know, regarding matters of the unseen, we should not expand upon them; rather, we must stop at the text, and the matter is ended. Please, go ahead.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. I have not recently encountered this hadith. In what we have read, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim say that this wording came:
the first of what Allah created was the Pen
أولَ ما خلق الله القلمThe Shaykh : It is this, and I clarified it long ago in *Takhrij Sharh al-Tahawiyyah*, where I refuted this interpretation. As for the Arabic style, you know your style better than I do. I am attached to your language, so if I am correct in anything, I am one who has become Arabized, whereas you are the Arabs and you are the original.
The questioner : No, no, if it is established.
The Shaykh : No, according to your statement: the narration is like this:
the first of what Allah created was the Pen
أولُ ما خلق الله القلمAnd He said to it: "Write"
فقال له: اكتبIt said: "What shall I write?" He said: "Write what is destined to happen until the Day of Resurrection"
قال: ما أكتب ؟ قال: اكتب ما هو كائن إلى يوم القيامةThe questioner : If the narration is established, it is possible, meaning, to consider it a circumstantial phrase and proceed with the Arabic grammatical possibilities.
The Shaykh : If it is established!
The questioner : If it is established.
The Shaykh : But as it came in some reports, and without blame: "Place the 'if' at that star".
Then do not forget, I said earlier something of importance: The scholars differed on the first created thing, and I pointed out that the one who says that events have no beginning narrated this disagreement and preferred the view contrary to this hadith based on what arose in his mind that: "first" is in the accusative case as a circumstantial phrase, and he said: the first created thing is the Throne. Thus, the entire claim is refuted, and this is important, as is not hidden from you.
The questioner : He does not say the first created thing is the first created thing; he says it is prior to the Pen, he does not say it is the first created thing.
The Shaykh : No, he does not say that. He narrates the issue of the disagreement among scholars in defining the first created thing, and he prefers that the first created thing is the Throne. Yes, that is right. And now I am asking permission from the honorable Shaykh, it is now nine o'clock. That is it, it is over. May Allah bless you. Be gentle, be gentle. Do you permit it, O honorable Shaykh?
The questioner : At your ease.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : I say: At your ease.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.