Explaining the Difference Between the Methodology of the People of the Sunnah and the Community and That of the Mufawwidah in the Chapter of Names and Attributes
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : We return now to those who delegate the matter. What do they say?
They say: We believe in the verse as it came, but we do not know what the meaning of "Alim" (All-Knowing) is, what the meaning of "Sami'" (All-Hearing) is, or what the meaning of "Basir" (All-Seeing) is. We delegate the matter to Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He. Some people think that this is the methodology of the Salaf. This is not the methodology of the Salaf. The methodology of the Salaf is affirming the attribute along with purifying Allah from imperfections. The methodology of the Mufawwidah is that they do not affirm anything; they say: Allah knows best what He intends. As for purifying Allah from imperfections, that is a matter shared by all sects, whether the Salaf, the Mufawwidah, the Mu'tazilah, the Asha'irah, or the Maturidiyyah. They all agree on purifying Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and that He is not like created things. However, they differ in their stance toward all the attributes that came in the Book and the Sunnah, such as the example before us now.
If the Salaf differ on a verse or a hadith, that does not mean they have departed from this principle. As for the Khalaf who say: "The knowledge of the Salaf is safer, and the knowledge of the Khalaf is more precise and more knowledgeable", the principle in disagreement is in the foundational rule, not in what necessarily follows from the disagreement of each of the two groups regarding a part or an attribute, such as the verse of the Leg. Therefore, no one should understand that the Salaf do not differ on any of the verses of attributes, but they agree on the principle.
For example, the interpretation of "Mu'ayyah" (companionship) may be narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) in a way that differs from what came from those after him, but they all ultimately return to affirming the attributes as a principle, unlike the Mu'tazilah and unlike those who followed them in much of the deviation in which the Mu'tazilah deviated. You heard earlier that the Mu'tazilah deny the attributes of hearing and seeing, but the Asha'irah, for example, and the Maturidiyyah affirm them and do not interpret them or deny their meanings as the Mu'tazilah did. But these later scholars from the Asha'irah and Maturidiyyah, in the original methodology: is it belief in the meanings of the attributes along with purifying Allah from imperfections, or is the original methodology ta'wil (figurative interpretation)?
These later scholars from the Asha'irah and Mu'tazilah are between the methodology of the Salaf and the methodology of the Mu'tazilah. Sometimes you find them like the Mu'tazilah, such as their stance on the divine speech, where the Mu'tazilah explicitly state, without any ambiguity, that the speech of Allah is created. As for the Asha'irah and Maturidiyyah, they say: The speech of Allah is not created. But if you press them and scrutinize them, you find that in the end they agree with the Mu'tazilah at the point where they say the speech of Allah is an attribute of His, unlike the Mu'tazilah. But when a person scrutinizes their research, they say: The divine speech, which is an attribute of His, is not the speech that the Salaf believe in, as He (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the authentic hadith:. They do not say that the speech of Allah is letters, words, and sound as the Salaf say, but rather they agree with the Mu'tazilah in denying this reality, though they differ from the Mu'tazilah in that they interpret the divine speech as returning to knowledge. Therefore, when they refute the Mu'tazilah and say to them: Why do you say the speech of Allah is created? Is our Lord, Blessed and Exalted is He, not capable of making Moses understand His speech, Blessed and Exalted is He?!
They do not say: Is Allah not capable of making Moses hear His speech, He who said to him:[Taha 20:13]? They invoke this description related to the divine speech taken from this explicit verse: [Taha 20:13]. They do not say to the Mu'tazilah: Is Allah not capable of making Moses hear His speech and His voice? Rather, they say: Is Allah not capable of making him understand His speech? So they returned the attribute of speech to knowledge, just as it can be said: Is Allah, Mighty and Majestic, not capable of making Moses know the tablets? As for the Mu'tazilah, regarding the tablets that Allah revealed to Moses (peace be upon him), and He expressed them by saying, the Exalted: , they explicitly say: It is not Allah who spoke, and it is not Allah who said: [Taha 20:14], but rather the tree spoke. So Allah does not speak and does not utter.
The Maturidiyyah and the Asha'irah agree with them in reality, but they name the divine speech established in the Qur'an as "psychological speech" that does not come out, is not heard, is not read, and so on. This should be in our minds.
As for the Salaf, they differ from the other sects in their agreement on the principle, which is: purifying Allah from imperfections along with affirmation. As for the others, it is ta'wil (figurative interpretation), which is ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) along with purifying Allah from imperfections. So purifying Allah from imperfections along with ta'wil, which is often accompanied by ta'til, did not benefit them.
And how well Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and perhaps he quoted it from his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah:
"The one who denies attributes worships a non-entity, and the one who ascribes a body to Allah worships an idol", and this is a reality that no one can deny.
And that the disagreement, as I said at the beginning of this speech, does not stop among all Muslims at the branches, but extends to the principles, and what is meant by them are: the rules related to creed. I mentioned that the Salaf and their followers from the Salafis do not differ on the principle, but they may differ in some of its details. The case in this is exactly like the case in the scientific, foundational, and jurisprudential principles. Just as the people of hadith do not differ with one another that the reference in case of disagreement is the Book and the Sunnah and what the righteous Salaf were upon, they may differ, for example, on a hadith whether it is authentic or weak, and this does not harm. And they may differ in understanding an authentic hadith, and this does not harm, because the principle and the rule are agreed upon among them, and it is not so with those who opposed them.
They say: We believe in the verse as it came, but we do not know what the meaning of "Alim" (All-Knowing) is, what the meaning of "Sami'" (All-Hearing) is, or what the meaning of "Basir" (All-Seeing) is. We delegate the matter to Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He. Some people think that this is the methodology of the Salaf. This is not the methodology of the Salaf. The methodology of the Salaf is affirming the attribute along with purifying Allah from imperfections. The methodology of the Mufawwidah is that they do not affirm anything; they say: Allah knows best what He intends. As for purifying Allah from imperfections, that is a matter shared by all sects, whether the Salaf, the Mufawwidah, the Mu'tazilah, the Asha'irah, or the Maturidiyyah. They all agree on purifying Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and that He is not like created things. However, they differ in their stance toward all the attributes that came in the Book and the Sunnah, such as the example before us now.
If the Salaf differ on a verse or a hadith, that does not mean they have departed from this principle. As for the Khalaf who say: "The knowledge of the Salaf is safer, and the knowledge of the Khalaf is more precise and more knowledgeable", the principle in disagreement is in the foundational rule, not in what necessarily follows from the disagreement of each of the two groups regarding a part or an attribute, such as the verse of the Leg. Therefore, no one should understand that the Salaf do not differ on any of the verses of attributes, but they agree on the principle.
For example, the interpretation of "Mu'ayyah" (companionship) may be narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) in a way that differs from what came from those after him, but they all ultimately return to affirming the attributes as a principle, unlike the Mu'tazilah and unlike those who followed them in much of the deviation in which the Mu'tazilah deviated. You heard earlier that the Mu'tazilah deny the attributes of hearing and seeing, but the Asha'irah, for example, and the Maturidiyyah affirm them and do not interpret them or deny their meanings as the Mu'tazilah did. But these later scholars from the Asha'irah and Maturidiyyah, in the original methodology: is it belief in the meanings of the attributes along with purifying Allah from imperfections, or is the original methodology ta'wil (figurative interpretation)?
These later scholars from the Asha'irah and Mu'tazilah are between the methodology of the Salaf and the methodology of the Mu'tazilah. Sometimes you find them like the Mu'tazilah, such as their stance on the divine speech, where the Mu'tazilah explicitly state, without any ambiguity, that the speech of Allah is created. As for the Asha'irah and Maturidiyyah, they say: The speech of Allah is not created. But if you press them and scrutinize them, you find that in the end they agree with the Mu'tazilah at the point where they say the speech of Allah is an attribute of His, unlike the Mu'tazilah. But when a person scrutinizes their research, they say: The divine speech, which is an attribute of His, is not the speech that the Salaf believe in, as He (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the authentic hadith:
Whoever recites the Qur'an, he has ten good deeds for every letter. I do not say Alif-Lam-Mim is one letter, but Alif is a letter, Lam is a letter, and Mim is a letter.
من قرأ القرآن فله بكل حرف عشر حسنات لا أقول آلم حرف بل ألف حرف لام حرف ميم حرفThey do not say: Is Allah not capable of making Moses hear His speech, He who said to him:
so listen to what is revealed
فاستمع لما يوحىso listen to what is revealed
فاستمع لما يوحىAnd Allah spoke to Moses with direct speech
وكلم الله موسى تكليماًIndeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance.
إنني أنا الله لا إله إلا أناْ فاعبدني وأقم الصلاة لذكريThe Maturidiyyah and the Asha'irah agree with them in reality, but they name the divine speech established in the Qur'an as "psychological speech" that does not come out, is not heard, is not read, and so on. This should be in our minds.
As for the Salaf, they differ from the other sects in their agreement on the principle, which is: purifying Allah from imperfections along with affirmation. As for the others, it is ta'wil (figurative interpretation), which is ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) along with purifying Allah from imperfections. So purifying Allah from imperfections along with ta'wil, which is often accompanied by ta'til, did not benefit them.
And how well Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and perhaps he quoted it from his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah:
"The one who denies attributes worships a non-entity, and the one who ascribes a body to Allah worships an idol", and this is a reality that no one can deny.
And that the disagreement, as I said at the beginning of this speech, does not stop among all Muslims at the branches, but extends to the principles, and what is meant by them are: the rules related to creed. I mentioned that the Salaf and their followers from the Salafis do not differ on the principle, but they may differ in some of its details. The case in this is exactly like the case in the scientific, foundational, and jurisprudential principles. Just as the people of hadith do not differ with one another that the reference in case of disagreement is the Book and the Sunnah and what the righteous Salaf were upon, they may differ, for example, on a hadith whether it is authentic or weak, and this does not harm. And they may differ in understanding an authentic hadith, and this does not harm, because the principle and the rule are agreed upon among them, and it is not so with those who opposed them.