What is your opinion of the statement made by some regarding the names and attributes of Allah: "We are content with what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions were content with"?

Eid Abbasi : What is your opinion of these principles established by a major Islamic writer? First: We believe in the verses and attributes, their authentic hadiths, and the ambiguous matters attached to them, exactly as they came, without figurative interpretation or denial of the divine attributes, and we do not address the disagreement among scholars regarding them. We are content with what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions were content with: . Second: The relative innovation...

The Shaykh : No, no, this is enough.
This statement is sound and beautiful, except that it contains ambiguity in one aspect, which must be clarified and explained. It is his statement at the end of his explanation: "We are content with what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions were content with," or as he said. We say: Yes, but regarding these verses of attributes and hadiths of attributes, when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not interpret them figuratively and did not deny them, a question arises here: Did he understand them or not? If it is said: He understood them; then we must understand them in following him (peace be upon him), because the writer says: "We are content with what the Messenger (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) was content with," and this is a true statement. If it is said: No, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not understand them and did not investigate them, this is a shock and a blow to the most noble thing in the Messenger (peace be upon him), because the Qur'an was revealed to him and he was tasked with explaining it to the people. If it is said that the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not understand these verses, then naturally he did not explain them to the people, because one who lacks a thing cannot give it. And the claim that he did not explain it, but due to many texts such as His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): to the end of the verse. And if it is said: No, far be it from Allah, the Messenger (peace be upon him) understood these verses as he understood the entire Qur'an, in response to His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): ; then in that case, to escape figurative interpretation and denial of the divine attributes, it is necessary to understand the texts of the verses of attributes and hadiths of attributes without denial and without likening Allah to creation.
The original principle in this is that there are three schools of thought regarding the verses of attributes and hadiths of attributes:
The school of the Salaf: It is understanding the texts as they came, understanding the texts as they came without likening Allah to creation and without figurative interpretation, . So regarding His saying: , we do not say: "Allah knows best what He intended." The meaning of what is intended by His saying: is understood, but at the same time that we understand these two attributes in the Arabic style, we do not liken our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) to any of His servants; combining the transcendence and the affirmation mentioned in this verse: . This is the school of the Salaf.
The school of the Khalaf: It is the second school, which is the figurative interpretation of the verses of attributes. They claimed to do so out of fear of likening Allah to creation, so they fell, unfortunately, into denial of the divine attributes; that is, they denied many of the attributes. Among the schools here are those that go deep into figurative interpretation, to the point that they almost deny the existence of Allah because of their denial of the attributes of Allah. There is no doubt that some Islamic philosophers fell into this absolute denial. They say: We do not describe Him as Living, and we do not say that He is Living or not Living. Why? Because if you say: Allah is Living; then I am speaking now, I am living and you are living; there is likening. And we do not say: He is not Living; because we have judged Him as dead and non-existent. And thus they fell into confusion and bewilderment that led them in reality to absolute denial. Therefore, the best expression for these people was by the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and then Ibn al-Qayyim followed him in this and said: "The one who denies the attributes worships non-existence." There is no doubt.
But I said that those who interpret figuratively vary in their interpretation; some go deep and drown in interpretation, to the point that they reached what you heard, absolute denial. And some are less than that, and some are less and less. And among these are the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah, unfortunately. These people, for example, and the matter concerns us regarding them, because the majority of Muslims today from the people of the Sunnah follow these two schools, the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah. These people, for example, in the previous verse: , do not interpret hearing and sight figuratively; they do not say as the Mu'tazilah say: "Hearing and Seeing means Knowing." The Mu'tazilah are like this; they are more immersed in denying the verses of attributes through figurative interpretation. So they do not say: We describe our Lord as having hearing and having sight, but . The Mu'tazilah say: meaning the All-Knowing. Okay, Allah described Himself in more than one verse as All-Knowing, so how do you deny this verse or these two attributes? The Maturidiyyah and the Asha'irah are on the right path in their predecessors, they said: We say as our Lord said, but , while they come to other verses and other hadiths regarding other attributes and interpret them figuratively. Why? They said: We fear likening Allah to creation. Either this fear becomes consistent and leads you to absolute denial, or you stand in the position of the Salaf, which is based on this verse: . These are two schools: the school of the Salaf, understanding as indicated by the Arabic rules with transcendence, and the school of the Khalaf, figurative interpretation out of fear of likening Allah to creation, so they fell into much denial of the divine attributes.
A third group was found.

Eid Abbasi : The last phrase: the Khalaf.

The Shaykh : The Khalaf, yes, may Allah forgive me.
They say the third school: They claimed to want to stand in the middle between these and those, and these are called the Mu'awwidah. They do not explain in the manner of the Salaf, nor do they interpret figuratively in the manner of the Khalaf. If they are asked: What is the meaning of: for example? Allah knows best what He intended, ? Allah knows best what He intended, and so on for all verses of attributes, their silent language says: We do not know, we do not know, we do not know. Why, people? It is understood, , , , and so on. If we want to sit and explain, we want to interpret figuratively, and if we interpret figuratively, we contradict the Salaf; so we stand between these and those. These are the Mu'awwidah.
And I know by my experience and my reading of the research that takes place in this era that most of the Islamic writers today, other than the Salafis, their school is the Mu'awwidah. They do not take the school of the Salaf, which is very clear, because the Khalaf distorted or weakened and diminished the value of the school of the Salaf when they said: "The school of the Salaf is safer, and the school of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and more wise." How bad what they said. The Khalaf say: "The school of the Salaf is safer, and the school of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and more wise"; this means that the Salaf and with them Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and with him Abu Bakr and 'Umar, and count as many as you wish, these are like the dervishes who do not understand the correct understanding of these verses. Why? Because delving into their interpretation may involve the interpreter and he falls into some denial of the divine attributes or likening Allah to creation. As for the Khalaf, they distanced themselves from this and that, and brought the precise and correct knowledge in interpreting these verses. How can it be reasonable for a Muslim to believe that the Khalaf as a whole is more knowledgeable in their interpretation of the verses of attributes and more wise than the righteous Salaf? This is from the evil of departing from the methodology of the Salaf.
Therefore, we say constantly and forever: We call to the Book and the Sunnah, and to the methodology of the righteous Salaf. This is because all Muslims, despite the severe disagreement among them, call to the Book and the Sunnah, except for the fanatical imitators of the end times. These people are also content with the call to the Book and the Sunnah, because they fear this call just as the deniers of the divine attributes fear likening Allah to creation when we affirm the correct meaning of the verses while purifying our Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He). These people deviated regarding the verses of the attributes, and these people deviated from the Book and the Sunnah in general and in detail. They said: "It is not our concern except to follow blindly." They say that the one who calls to the Book and the Sunnah should be a scholar, and it is a condition for him that he has gathered the sciences they call the instrumental sciences. They assume that he must be more knowledgeable than Abu Hanifa himself. These people either ignored or pretended to ignore that it does not mean that every caller to following the Book and the Sunnah acts on his own head and comes to interpret the verse or hadith with his ignorance. Rather, it means that every Muslim has his rank. If he is truly a scholar, he must take from the Book and the Sunnah. This does not mean that he discards all the efforts of the imams; rather, he uses them to aid in the correct understanding. That is, he verifies what he verifies, such as His saying (the Exalted): . The scholar returns to what people have disputed and studies their evidence, so Allah (Mighty and Majestic) opens up to him, makes him see clearly, and informs him of the truth in which people differed.
The meaning of these people's refusal to return to the Book and the Sunnah is an explicit or near-explicit statement that this verse: has been abrogated and cancelled. This is because, in their claim, no one is commanded today to return to the Book and the Sunnah in case of disagreement. Rather, one must return to a single school of jurisprudence. If only they had said: "to the collection of schools of jurisprudence." This Hanafi returns to his school, this Maliki to his school, and so on.
In summary: The statement that came in the question, quoted from some Islamic writers, is correct and sound, with the observation mentioned earlier. That is: We must always keep in mind when we read this text that if the writer means by his statement: "What sufficed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in his understanding of the verses of the attributes with purification suffices us," then this is correct speech. But if he means that the Salaf did not understand these verses and did not investigate them, then this attributes to them ignorance of the most noble thing concerning the Muslim, which is his knowledge of his Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He).
And this is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.