Is the statement of the Shaykh al-Islam

Al-Halabi: My Shaykh, when I said a moment ago that... Is the statement of the Shaykh al-Islam that events have no beginning, meaning they are ancient with Allah? That is my question.

The Shaykh: No, as long as he tells you in some of his books: "There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence."
Al-Halabi: No, my Shaykh, even from this very phrase.

The Shaykh: No, this phrase is misleading.
Al-Halabi: Misleading, but okay, let us reverse the matter regarding the past. We speak about the past, now let us speak about the future. Is not the bliss of the people of Paradise and the punishment of the people of the Fire continuing to infinity, and is it created?

The Shaykh: Continuing, yes indeed.
Al-Halabi: Well, does not the one who makes this continuous in the future also make it continuous in the past? And both of them can only be created.

The Shaykh: Something, but here our basis is the Shari'ah. The first thing Allah created was the Pen.

The questioner: I ask your permission, my Shaykh. May Allah make your ending good.

The Shaykh: Amen, all of us. Here we cut off the debate by relying on the text, which is infallibility, as you know.

The questioner: As for by reason?

The Shaykh: By reason, like what...

The questioner: According to the brothers' statement that there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence, he says: "And likewise, they did not distinguish between a specific action being ancient and the type of that specific action being ancient, like the celestial sphere, which is created, made, and preceded by non-existence, and so is everything else."

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner: Meaning, there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence.
Wafi: My master, this is a lot from the Shaykh al-Islam, a lot.

The Shaykh: What book is this?
Wafiq: The commentary on the Hadith of 'Umar.

The Shaykh: He has a very detailed research in his explanation of Minhaj al-Sunnah. He has a very long research. I think there he explicitly states that there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence. So, the doubt of this man is refuted by the explicit words of Ibn Taymiyyah, that there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence. So, it cannot be said that he says the created things are eternal like Allah the Exalted. That is a fabrication against him. But the truth is, he says something that we say together, influenced by logic and reason, but this reason is contrary to the transmitted texts, and contrary to what he transmitted from the scholars of the Muslims regarding specifying the first created thing. We do not say all this in front of this man so as not to disarm him, but we say that Ibn Taymiyyah, it is not permissible for a Muslim who believes in Allah and the Last Day and keeps before his eyes his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): and he hears him saying: "There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence." So, it is not permissible to say that he says the created things are eternal like Allah the Exalted, as long as he explicitly states this clear Arabic speech. As for: "By Allah, there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, whether you understood it or not, it does not concern you. Stand with the text, with the Shari'ah, and the matter is ended."
Wafiq: Perhaps they argue with his statement that the created things have no beginning to their first, or no beginning to their beginning?

The Shaykh: Meaning, he does not know the first created thing, but what is the outcome of his state?
Wafi: Well, where is this from? Where is this statement of the Shaykh al-Islam from?

The Shaykh: It is not important where this is from. The important thing is, is this man a disbeliever when he says: "There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence"?

The questioner: Despite the fact that the poet's verse is true about him: "You are the litigant, and you are the defendant and the judge."
So he was the defendant and the judge when the brother Ali presented the many texts that everything other than Allah is created. I saw him deeply affected, even when he said andThe Shaykh : Ali: We came becauseThe Shaykh : al-Saqaf declares Ibn Taymiyyah a disbeliever, he said: "By Allah, if I knew it was about declaring him a disbeliever, I would not have come."
Wafi: ... I told him we wanted a fatwa from the honorable Dr. Ali al-Faqir to state: Is the Shaykh al-Islam a Muslim or a disbeliever? And I said: I will quote from you that you are suspended.

The Shaykh: Did he not give you an answer?
Wafiq: He did not give one, I told him now I will quote from you that you are suspended.

The Shaykh: Will he attend tonight?
Wafi: Yes.

The Shaykh: Hold him from this side.
Wafiq: So, he does not rule the session unless he acknowledges his Islam.

The Shaykh: And I believe you should not take books with you. Why were there no books with you in the previous session?
Al-Halabi: With us.

The Shaykh: Did you not read the texts?
Al-Halabi: What did you say just now?

The Shaykh: Do not bring books with you?
Wafiq: We do not take the books with us?

The Shaykh: Yes, do not take the books with you. Were the books not with you in the previous session?
Al-Halabi: Yes, they were.

The Shaykh: Well, so you tell him that we presented to you the texts of Ibn Taymiyyah, including: "There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence," and you suspended giving the explicit answer to the question here: Is he a Muslim or a disbeliever? Now we have come to hear the answer from you.

The questioner: Al-Saqaf attends with books and reads and writes from the texts, but by the great Allah, he needs when he reads a text to have the opposite book with you so that you can catch his deception.

The Shaykh: Allah is the Greatest, to this extent?!

The questioner: Meaning, a man, may Allah grant us safety.
Wafiq: Our Shaykh, can I ask for the book Manazil al-Ijma' from you?
Ibn Hazm transmits the consensus of the Ummah and the consensus of the Companions, if the statement is correct, on declaring as disbelievers one who does not acknowledge that Allah the Exalted is the Creator of everything. In al-Saqaf's speech, he said, meaning about Ibn Taymiyyah, but there is a great dispute in this.
The words of Ibn Hazm: "They agreed that Allah the Exalted, alone, has no partner, is unlike everything other than Him, and that He was always alone with nothing else with Him, then He created all things as He willed, and that the soul is created, the Throne is created, and the entire universe is created, and that prophethood is true, and that there were many prophets, some of whom Allah the Exalted named in the Qur'an and some of whom He did not name for us, and that Muhammad ibn Abdullah, the Qurayshi, the Hashimite, sent in Mecca, the emigrant to Medina, is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to all jinn and humans until the Day of Resurrection, and the religion of Islam is..." He indicates that the issues in this chapter are from what is established in the religion by necessity, so they are not a place for dispute at all Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari; and then here: "And he concluded the book with a chapter on consensus in beliefs and the disbelief of whoever contradicts it, saying: 'They agreed that Allah alone has no partner, the Creator of everything other than Him, and that He was always alone with nothing else with Him, then He created all things when He willed, and that the soul is created, the Throne is created, and the entire universe is created.'" I said: Ibn Taymiyyah; as for the consensus of the Salaf and the people of the Sunnah and the community that Allah alone is the Creator of everything, this is true; but they did not agree on the disbelief of whoever contradicts that, or whoever contradicts it. The Qadariyyah who say that the actions of animals were not created by Allah are too numerous to mention from the time the Qadariyyah appeared in the late era of the Companions to this date, and all the Mu'tazilah are Qadariyyah, and many of the Shi'ah, indeed most of the later Shi'ah, and many of the Murji'ah and the Khawarij, and sects from the people of hadith and jurisprudence were attributed to that, including sects from the men of the two Sahihs, and they did not agree on declaring these people disbelievers. In fact, he himself mentioned at the beginning of his book that he does not declare these people disbelievers. And the explicit statement from Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad regarding the Qadariyyah is: "If they deny knowledge, they are disbelievers, and if they do not deny it, they are not disbelievers." Shall we continue, my Shaykh?

The Shaykh: Let us see what the connection of the speech is.
Wafiq: Also, he mentioned in his book his student...

The Shaykh: Did this man read this to you?

The questioner : No, no.

The Shaykh: So what did he read?
Al-Halabi: ... a part of this

The questioner: There was a man next to him wearing a suit, he puts a line on this, and after ten lines he puts a line and puts a line, and weaves the words together.

The Shaykh: Al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) laughs, is there something here that benefits you against him?
Wafi: By Allah, it appears that there is, because things like the Qadariyyah and such, that the ummah differs in declaring them disbelievers.

The Shaykh: No, regarding the research between you and the man.
Wafiq: Meaning this issue?

The questioner: It was transmitted that Ibn Hazm transmitted the consensus, and Ibn Taymiyyah compelled him by saying he says the opposite of this consensus, and supported him in that.
Al-Halabi: Oh, what a beautiful text this is: "And also, he mentioned in his book on the Sects and Creeds: 'The Companions and the Imams of Ifta do not declare disbelievers those who err in a matter of belief or in the branches.'"

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi: Ah, my Shaykh, and he laughsThe Shaykh : onAl-Halabi : May Allah benefit through him.

The Shaykh: Ah, we know this that the distinction between the fundamentals and the branches has no basis.
Al-Halabi : "And if he meant by his statement that the Muslims are upon this, then that is more eloquent. It is known that such a transmission of consensus was not transmitted by him from his knowledge of the statements of the Imams, but because he knew that the Qur'an informed that Allah is the Creator of all things, and that this is among the most apparent matters for the Ummah, he narrated the consensus on this. Then he believed that whoever opposes the consensus is a disbeliever by consensus. So his narration of this consensus is based on these two premises, in which the dispute is established in each of them. And more amazing than that is his narration of the consensus on the disbelief of one who disputes that He, the Exalted, was not ever alone with nothing else with Him, then He created the things as He willed. And it is known that this phrase is not in the Book of Allah, nor is it attributed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Rather, what is in the authentic hadith from him is the hadith of 'Imran ibn Husayn from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): And in another wording: And this hadith was narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari with three wordings. It was narrated: And it was narrated: And it was narrated: And the story is one. And it is known that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only said one of these wordings."

The Shaykh : And his statement was narrated in a way that is not Muslim.
Al-Halabi : Yes, with the wording that is with him in al-Bukhari. Ibn Hajar says, and with other than al-Bukhari: ; but did you find it, my Shaykh, in any of the books of terminology?

The Shaykh : By Allah, I spoke about the tracing of the 'Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, and I no longer remember now.
Al-Halabi : He mentioned that there is no narration that I found in any of the books.

The Shaykh : Yes, I see this as one of the problems, that he now denies this narration in terms of meaning: He tells you: and nothing before it. Yes; but "nothing with it," no, in the logic of events, in the logic of events that have no beginning, it does not fit with the narration "nothing with Him." Follow.
Al-Halabi : "He only said one of these wordings, and the other two were narrated by meaning; and at that time, what fits the wording that is established from him in the other authentic hadith is that he used to..."

The Shaykh : before it.
Al-Halabi : before it" what is established from him in the other authentic hadith is that he used to say in his supplication: So his saying in this: fits his saying: And the speech on this hadith and others has been elaborated in other places. The purpose here is to speak about what some people suppose to be consensus; so this phrase is not in the Book of Allah, and this hadith, if it were a text in what was mentioned, is not mutawatir. How many authentic hadiths have much dispute in their meaning? How much more so when the purpose of the hadith is not what was mentioned, and we do not know these phrases from the Companions, the Tabi'un, and the Imams of the Muslims. So how is consensus claimed in them, and consensus claimed on the disbelief of one who opposes that? But the known consensus is what the Ummah knows that Allah clarified in the Qur'an, which is that He created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days, as Allah informed of that in the Qur'an in more than one place. So if the claimant claims consensus on this and the disbelief of one who opposes this, his statement is directed. And there is not in the news of Allah that He created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days what negates the existence of a created thing before them, nor negates that He created them from a substance that was before them, as He informed that He created man and created the jinn, and He only created man from a substance which is clay like pottery, and He created the jinn from a flame of fire. How, when it is established in the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf, in which no dispute is known, that when Allah created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days, His Throne was upon the water before that, so the Throne was existing before that, and the water was existing before that? And it is established in Sahih Muslim from 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: And He, the Exalted, informed that He rose to the lowest heaven while it was smoke: And it is established from more than one of the Companions and the Tabi'un and others from the scholars of the Muslims that He created the heaven from the vapor of water, and similar to that of the narrations that you utter, which the People of the Book indicate by the Torah and what they have of inherited knowledge from the prophets. And the testimony of the People of the Book that agrees with what is in the Qur'an or the Sunnah is accepted, as in His saying, the Exalted: and its parallels in the Qur'an.
And in this place, two groups erred:
A group of the people of Kalam from the Jews and the Muslims and others thought that the information of Allah about His creation of the heavens and the earth and what is between them necessitates that they were not created from something, but that there was no existence before them except Allah. And it is known that the news of Allah is close to that. And Allah has informed that He created man and the jinn from a substance He mentioned. And those who affirm the individual atom from these and others believe that the creation of man and others of what He creates in this world is not creation from a substance that stands by itself, but it is the origination of accidents by which the individual atoms are transformed from one state to another. And this is contrary to the Shari'ah and reason, as has been elaborated in its place. For these people say that we have not witnessed the creation of a specific entity, but the Lord originated the individual atoms, and then the creation after that is only the origination of accidents that stand with them.
And another group is further from the Shari'ah and reason than these. They interpret the creation of the heavens and the earth by the meaning of generation, causation, and origination by essence. They say that the celestial sphere is ancient and eternal, caused by the Lord, and that it is necessitated by its essence, and it was not ever and is not ceasing. So their saying of necessity is the meaning of the saying of generation, for what is obtained from another without its choice has been generated from it, especially if it is living. And these people say with the antiquity of the entity of the celestial sphere and that it was not ever and is not ceasing. So if it is said that the Muslims unanimously agreed on the opposite of their saying, or on the disbelief of one who says with their saying, it would be a directed statement, because it is known by necessity from the religion of the Messenger that he informed of the creation of the heavens and the earth after they were not created, unlike the one who claimed that the Creator was not ever inactive, and action and speech...

The Shaykh : ...was not ever inactive.
Al-Halabi : "For it is known by necessity from the religion of the Messenger that he informed of the creation of the heavens and the earth after they were not created, unlike the one who claimed that the Creator was not ever inactive, and action and speech upon Him are impossible without a new cause, necessitating its transition from impossibility to possibility and necessitating that the Lord become capable of action."

The Shaykh : capable.
Al-Halabi : Yes, "so the Lord becomes capable of action, or action and speech, after He was not capable of that. So this claim and its like are known to be corrupt in reason, along with their corruption in the Shari'ah, by the majority of the rational people. And it is known to one who has knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus that the Shari'ah did not come with this, nor with what indicates it, ever. But some of the people of Kalam thought that this is the religion of the people of the religions, and they argued for that with the speech that the Salaf and the Imams denied against them, that what does not escape from events is an event. And what the Salaf and the Imams denied against them was the false speech in which they opposed the Shari'ah and reason. And the speech on this has been elaborated in other places, and the origin of the error of the two groups was mentioned where they did not distinguish between the type and the entity. And the saying of the Salaf and the Imams was mentioned that Allah was not ever speaking when He willed, and that there is no end to the words of Allah, and that the existence of what has no end of the words of Allah in the past, as it is established in the future, its existence is also what has no end. And that everything other than Allah, the Exalted, is created, was after it was not, and there is nothing with Him that is ancient with His antiquity. Rather, that is impossible in reason and false in the Shari'ah, for Allah informed that He is the Creator of all things. And the saying that the Creator is a complete eternal cause necessitating its effect is false in principle and in the Shari'ah, and its implication is that it is necessarily impossible for a complete cause to be accompanied by the origination of something from the world, for events, after they were not, it is impossible for their effect to be accompanied by them. Rather, it has been clarified that the saying that the doer is a complete cause necessitating the done is false, and that action does not occur except by the origination of something, but there is a difference between the origination of the specific thing and the origination of events one after another."
It is established by certain evidence that the Lord acts by His will and power, and that if it is said that He is necessitated by His essence, then if what is meant is that He necessitates by His will and power what He wills, this does not contradict His acting by His will and power. But if what is meant is what the materialists and philosophers, such as Ibn Sina and his like, say, namely that a pure essence devoid of attributes necessitated the universe with all its diverse, created matters, then this is one of the most corrupt opinions in terms of reason and revelation. For establishing a pure essence devoid of attributes, or establishing an existence devoid of all limitations, or one limited by negation, is not specific to an existential matter that cannot be realized in the external world; rather, the mind conceives of it just as it conceives of other impossibilities. And the claim that the attribute is the attributed... [to the end of the speech].

The Shaykh : My brother, in brief, the man should be held to the limit of Ibn Taymiyyah’s explicit statement that he is the Creator of all things, and that if he speaks of created matters without a beginning, he means that we cannot determine the first created thing. But he explicitly states that no created thing exists without being preceded by non-existence. He is the Creator of all things. So from where do you declare him a disbeliever?
Wafiq: Everything other than Allah is created.
Al-Halabi : ... His statement that no created thing exists without a created thing preceding it clarifies the fundamental issue, which is: what is the first created thing? The Shaykh al-Islam does not have a preferred position on this issue.

The Shaykh : That is it.
Al-Halabi : And his other texts indicate that every created thing is preceded by non-existence.

The Shaykh : So, and then what is his opinion of the Mu'tazilah, whom Ibn Taymiyyah referred to in his previous speech, who say that man creates his own actions? Does he declare them disbelievers?
Ibn Taymiyyah does not declare them disbelievers because he considers it a doubtful matter. You are holding onto Ibn Taymiyyah and declaring him a disbeliever because you assume he says that Allah is not the Creator of all things. Yet he tells you in clear Arabic, by his faith in the Noble Qur'an: Then he explains to you, saying: Yes, I believe that no created thing exists without a created thing preceding it, but every created thing is preceded by non-existence. So what remains for you? You are clinging to declaring this man a disbeliever.

The questioner : Allah is the Creator of all things, and it is not necessary that this thing have a beginning as long as Allah is the Creator.

The Shaykh : But the matter is over.
Wafi: Shaykh, on a point from the previous session, this Hasan al-Saqaf wanted to drive a wedge—what we call it among people—saying, "You contradict your Shaykh."The Shaykh : Nasser says the chain is such and such; so based on the words you have just favored us with, it appears that we believe Ibn Taymiyyah erred in this statement despite the existence of the text.

The Shaykh : Define it, my brother?
Wafi: The statement is: "No created thing exists without being preceded by its own non-existence, extending to what has no beginning." Do we err in attributing this to Ibn Taymiyyah despite the existence of the text?

The Shaykh : Error, yes.
Wafiq: So we did not acknowledge his error of Ibn Taymiyyah in that session.
Al-Halabi : He said "its own non-existence."

The Shaykh : No, I am explicit about this.
Wafiq: Yes, it is present.

The Shaykh : I am explicit about this.
Al-Halabi : We err in attributing to Ibn Taymiyyah the view that every created thing is preceded by a created thing, not that every created thing is preceded by its own non-existence. On that point, we agree with him.

The Shaykh : No, that is correct. What did he say?
Al-Halabi : He said: "Preceded by its own non-existence." On this, we agree with Ibn Taymiyyah.
Wafi: ButThe Shaykh : what he wrote in the chain is: "No created thing exists without being preceded by a created thing."

The Shaykh : That is it.
Al-Halabi : That is the point where we err in attributing it to him.

The Shaykh : It appears they heard a different word from you.
Al-Halabi : Preceded by its own non-existence.
Wafiq: He says this because...

The Shaykh : We have two cases, and I hope you will pay attention to them. The majority said the Throne, and others said the Pen. So the scholars seem to be in agreement that there is a first created thing; they are in agreement that there is a first created thing, but they differ in identifying this created thing. So, in my opinion, Ibn Taymiyyah erred in two aspects:
The first aspect: He narrated the scholars' disagreement in specifying the first created thing and mentioned that the majority's view is that the first created thing is the Throne. So there is no created thing before the Throne. If the Throne is the first created thing, then there is no created thing before the Throne. His statement, "No created thing exists without being preceded by a created thing, and so on to what has no beginning," contradicts what he narrated from the people of knowledge, as well as contradicting the explicit hadith, even if he interpreted it. I think you saw this in my takhrij of the Sharh al-Tahawiyyah: that the first thing Allah created was the created thing. It is not a subject and predicate that ends there. No, whereas what I mentioned from some narrations, and I think it is from Musnad Abu Ya'la, and Allah knows best, the time is long, is a subject and predicate.
Al-Halabi : .

The Shaykh : Yes, so the point is that we do not contradict Ibn Taymiyyah in his statement: "No created thing exists without being preceded by a created thing," but we do not say "to what has no beginning." We do not say this... In fact, we hold Allah to this. I advise, in brief, that the man be held to the limit of Ibn Taymiyyah’s explicit statement that no created thing exists without being preceded by non-existence, and that Allah is the Creator of all things, as he explicitly stated in his commentary on Maratib al-Ijma'. And the matter is ended. As for his statement that no created thing exists without a created thing preceding it, if he means that the created things do not end from the beginning, then we are not Taymiyyis. And I fear for us to say we are not Taymiyyis. But it is not permissible for you to declare this man a disbeliever, because it is contrary to what you accuse him of.
Wafi: Okay, Shaykh, we want to confirm something. That is, before we came here, what we said earlier had settled in our minds.

The Shaykh : And what is it?
Wafi: We want to see the opinionThe Shaykh : on this detail... That is, everything that came from the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) that everything other than Allah is created, we clearly understand that he denies that there is anything ancient alongside Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He).

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Wafi: But the issue we had was that whenever Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) spoke in this place, he usually mentioned will and power. So we said that if his intention was specific antiquity or the ancient type, and these words refer to what pertains to Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He).

The Shaykh : No, absolutely not.
Wafiq: Far-fetched, meaning.

The Shaykh : It is actually free of issue, but this is not the topic of created matters that have no beginning.

The questioner : Even though it is a reality.

The Shaykh: Yes.
Wafaq: Even though al-Siqaf did not address accidents that have no beginning, but rather what he addressed was specific existence.

The questioner : They are two doors that open onto each other.
Al-Halabi : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : Welcome, and likewise to you, my brother. I ask Allah to strengthen you and help you against your enemies. Oh Allah.