The differences that have occurred among the people of the Sunnah, both in the past and in the present: are they in the fundamentals or in the branches?

The questioner : Regarding the Islamic groups and the people of the Sunnah and their differences, are they differences regarding creed, or differences regarding the narrations of hadith, or something else?

The Shaykh : Excuse me, so that I can answer, what do you mean by the people of the Sunnah in the past?

The questioner : In the past and in the present, meaning those who exist now.

The Shaykh : It is a bit difficult to answer this question without some preliminary explanation. I say that in the past, it was known among scholars and jurists that the people of the Sunnah had three schools of thought, and all these schools belong to the Sunnah regardless of their correctness or error. However, the inquiry regarding affiliation is that these schools are three in creed and four in the branches. The three schools related to creed are the school of the people of hadith, which is the one we adopt and we are not satisfied with any alternative; the second school is the school of the Maturidiyyah, and the third school is the Asha'irah, or the Ash'aris. As for the issues of Islamic jurisprudence, you all know that the schools are four, naturally from the people of the Sunnah: the Hanafi, the Shafi'i, the Maliki, and the Hanbali. Today, there is some difference in this detail, so there is no longer a group that belongs to the Sunnah in the general sense of affiliation and adoption, except those known by multiple names, all of which end in acting according to the hadith and the Sunnah. In India and Pakistan, for example, they are called the people of hadith; in Egypt, they are called the supporters of the Sunnah; in Syria and here in Jordan, they are called the Salafis. These people explicitly belong to the Sunnah and do not adopt one of these specific schools because they know that in every school there is from the Sunnah and the hadith what is not found in the other schools. So if they belong to one school, they may miss some of the good that exists in the other schools, except in what concerns creed, for they hold fast to the school of the people of hadith and the people of the Sunnah, led by Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), because the people of hadith, in what concerns creed, understand the Book and the Sunnah according to the methodology of the righteous Salaf, unlike the other schools we mentioned earlier, such as the Maturidiyyah and the Asha'irah, for they do not adopt this style, or this methodology, in understanding the Book and the Sunnah. That is, they do not say, "We have no affiliation and no adoption; we are on the methodology of the righteous Salaf in understanding the verses and in understanding the hadiths." Rather, some of them said a word we wished they had not said, which is a famous word, accepted among them with no doubt in it, and unfortunately, where they said: "The school of the Salaf is safer, and the school of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and more wise." So this detail does not apply to today. Why? Because if you take the issue from the first aspect, the scholarly aspect, meaning what concerns creed, you rarely find someone who says to you, "I am an Ash'ari," or "I am a Maturidi." You do not find anyone who says this. Why? Because, unfortunately, creed is no longer studied comprehensively in schools, but in universities, except in scattered fragments. And if it is studied, it mostly differs according to the countries where those universities are located. For example, in the Maghreb, the entire Maghreb, starting from Libya, for example, and ending in Morocco, they study the Ash'ari creed. Similarly, in Egypt, for example. While in the Turkish countries, for example, and many of the lands of the non-Arabs in the past, they study the Maturidi school. But today, these specializations have been lost for the reason I mentioned earlier. It has also been lost for a common person to say, "I am a Hanafi, or a Shafi'i, or a Maliki, or a Hanbali," except very rarely. Why? Because, likewise, Islamic jurisprudence is no longer studied in universities as it was studied in the past in the scholarly circles in the mosques. Rather, as we see now, the doctor graduates with a degree in Shari'ah, but he has not studied except a few scattered issues related to Islamic jurisprudence, because the previous method, which was more beneficial and fruitful, the method of the circles, is no longer present in the mosques, unfortunately. So, in the field that exists today, there are only those who explicitly belong to the Sunnah and its methodology, whether in creed or in Islamic jurisprudence. As for the old schools, as I mentioned earlier, there are three in creed: the people of hadith, the Maturidis, and the Ash'aris. And Islamic jurisprudence, as you know today, all these schools, without doubt, there is no school among them that disavows the Sunnah or acting according to the hadith. And this is a point that must actually be noted. If we imagine a Muslim who says, "I do not act according to the hadith," then he has exited the community of Muslims, because the hadith is what enables the scholar to understand the words of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). And therefore, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) emphasized this meaning in the famous hadith: . So there is no Muslim who says, "I do not take the hadith." But there are Muslims, thousands upon thousands, indeed by the millions, who do so in practice and not in belief. And they may find for themselves excuses that are an excuse before Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and some that are not. For example, many of the graduates of the colleges of Shari'ah do not respond to the Salafi call, which calls all Muslims to act according to what is established in the Sunnah and not to adhere to a specific school, because that is what the Qur'an and the Sunnah ordered first, and then what the imams, the imams of Islamic jurisprudence, ordered second. So why do they not take this stance with the majority calling to act according to the Book and the Sunnah? They say, "We do not have the ability and we do not have the energy. This requires knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah, knowledge of the principles of hadith, knowledge of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, and so on." And of course, this is a long discussion, and we have many answers to it, but the intention now is to say that what exists in the arena now, there are no explicit people calling to act according to the Book and the Sunnah, except those who belong to acting according to the hadith and the Sunnah. As for the others, each of them is satisfied with what he studied, or what he did not study. If he studied the Maturidiyyah, he is a Maturidi, and this prevails among the Turks, who are completely fanatical for the Maturidiyyah in creed and for the Hanafi school in the branches. As for the masses of people, as they say in our place in Syria, "Put out your hand and walk: I don't know if he is a Hanafi or a Shafi'i." And so you find many of the imams of the mosques, from one side, you see him praying as if he is a Shafi'i, from another side, you see him as a Hanafi. Who is he? As they also say in our place, he is a "Hanafishafi'i," meaning he eats from here and from here, meaning it is not very clear. Look, the imam raises his hands and insists on the qunut in the Fajr prayer, as if it is one of the obligations, but he does not sit in the tawruk position in the prayer. In the tashahhud, he always sits in the iftirash position, iftirash, although this is the school of Imam al-Shafi'i first, and Imam al-Nawawi specifically urged attention to it in his great book al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhadhdhab. He pointed out that it is obligatory to pay attention to this sitting, the tawruk, and perhaps it is also obligatory to add to it the sitting of rest, and they do not do this either. So you do not know if this is a Hanafi because he does not sit in tawruk, and he does not sit the sitting of rest, but he is convinced that raising the hands is a recommended practice, so he raises them. Or the opposite of that, he is a Shafi'i, so he raises them by following his school, but he does not sit in tawruk, nor does he sit the sitting of rest following the people. I do not know if I answered what you asked, but if there are things that need clarification, I have no objection.

The questioner : Complete his question or clarify it...

The Shaykh : Allow me, let him leave the opportunity for someone else.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. On the same topic, is the difference in the branches or in the fundamentals?

The Shaykh : Both of them.

The questioner : In the fundamentals, O Shaykh, like what, for example, are the differences?

The Shaykh : Do we take these three schools as fundamentals or branches? Are the three schools fundamentals or branches? Why are you not speaking?

The questioner : Fundamentals.

The Shaykh : These are the fundamentals; what are the branches? Because they deal only with creed. The root of all the fundamentals is faith, because without faith, a person benefits from nothing, as is established among all Muslims. So what is your opinion if the scholars disagreed on this root, this fundamental, which is faith? They disagreed on it: is faith speech and action, or is it belief and action, with speech naturally following action? Or is it belief only, and action is not part of faith? There are two schools of thought. The people of hadith and the Asha'irah say the word of truth in our belief is that faith is belief and action. Therefore, no verse mentions faith without mentioning righteous action alongside it, . The Maturidiyyah say faith is belief only, and righteous action is not part of faith. This is a disagreement on a fundamental of the Shari'ah, which is faith. From this disagreement, another disagreement branched out: does faith increase and decrease, or does it neither increase nor decrease? There are two opinions, like the previous ones. The one who says faith is belief and action says it increases and decreases; its increase is obedience and its decrease is disobedience. The one who says faith is belief and does not include righteous action says it does not increase or decrease. Now, in this important issue, we have reached the point that there are two disagreements, or two schools of thought, in creed and understanding. But from this disagreement, a jurisprudential disagreement branched out, which is still recorded in the books: is it permissible for one who believes that faith does not increase or decrease to marry a woman who believes that faith increases and decreases, or is it not permissible? A fatwa was issued that it is not permissible. Why? They are now applying their school of thought. They say that those who say faith increases and decreases, if asked, "Are you a believer?" say, "I am a believer, if Allah wills." And those who say it does not increase or decrease, if asked, "Are you a believer?" say, "I am truly a believer." The one who says "I am truly a believer" says, "I do not marry a woman who doubts her faith, who says, 'I am a believer, if Allah wills.'" Thus, a fatwa was issued and acted upon by the proponents of this opinion for decades, until one of their great scholars came. Perhaps some of the attendees know the printed tafsir of this scholar, Tafsir Abu al-Su'ud, the Mufti of the Two Heavyweights. He is one of the great scholars of the Hanafis. He answered, and having been asked whether it is permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i woman, he said it is permissible, by placing her in the position of the People of the Book. And this means, unfortunately, a serious meaning: the reverse is not permissible. It is permissible for the Hanafi, as a man, to marry a Shafi'i woman, as a woman, just like a woman from the People of the Book. But is it permissible for a man from the People of the Book to marry a Muslim woman? No. So, it is not permissible for the Shafi'i, who in their claim doubts his faith, to marry a Hanafi woman. And all of this is written in the books. If you wish, I can name some of them. This, my brothers, exists. And as you see, the disagreement is in the fundamentals, in the roots of the fundamentals. Then there are many, many issues that are not easy for the general public to grasp, like this issue. You know the old disagreement raised by the Mu'tazilah, especially during the reign of the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun, regarding the Qur'an: is it the speech of Allah, or is it not the speech of Allah? All the people of the Sunnah say the Qur'an is the speech of Allah. The Mu'tazilah say no; this Qur'an is the speech of Allah, but the speech of Allah is created, meaning it is not the speech of Allah the Exalted. Here, the precision of the issue appears, because the three schools of the Sunnah have now converged in wording but differ in meaning. The people of hadith say the speech of Allah is an attribute of Allah, and it is impossible for it to be created. It is heard speech, heard by the angels and heard by the messengers, because Allah says, for example, regarding Musa, . He said to him when He spoke to him directly: . So He told him to listen, meaning the speech of Allah is heard. The scholars of hadith, the true people of the Sunnah, describe it by saying the speech of Allah is letters, and this is what he (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly stated in the authentic hadith: . So, according to the people of hadith, the speech of Allah is heard by the chosen ones of excellence, and it has letters. But according to the other two schools of the people of the Sunnah, the speech of Allah is not letters and it is not heard. They express this negation with an affirmative phrase in their claim: the speech of Allah is self-speech (nafs al-kalam). They speak of self-speech, meaning self-speech in their expression, exactly like divine knowledge, meaning it is not heard, not seen, and nothing else. Here, the dispute intensified between the people of hadith and the Asha'irah and Maturidiyyah, because when these people say the speech of Allah is not created, they mean self-speech, meaning what resembles divine knowledge, established in the divine essence, established in the essence of Allah Blessed and Exalted is He. They do not mean what the people of hadith mean, or what the Qur'an means. If a person wanted to count the verses, they might reach hundreds in which Allah the Exalted addresses some of His creation. . .
He said, he said, what is this speech? You know, according to the people of hadith, it means our Lord addresses Adam, addresses the angels, addresses Iblis, at a certain moment. And "idh" is circumstantial in the Arabic language, in a certain circumstance, our Lord said to the angels: "Prostrate to Adam." As for those who speak of self-speech and do not speak of verbal speech, these people say, and it is amazing what they say, that when our Lord said to Musa:
from eternity, and our Lord says . This is contrary to the truth and leads to denying the miracle of the Qur'an. Because the Mu'tazilah explicitly say it is created. The Asha'irah and Maturidiyyah are with the people of hadith in wording, but with the Mu'tazilah in creed. Because the Mu'tazilah did not deny divine knowledge, which is established in the essence of Allah the Exalted, and is similar to what they fabricated, the name of what? Self-speech. So it is contrary to reality, meaning, unfortunately, the exact opposite of what you hear from some contemporary lecturers and doctors, that the disagreement, my brother, is in the branches and not in the fundamentals. This is in reality, as we said before, if we do not call it misguidance, it is deep ignorance of the Shari'ah, the Book and the Sunnah, and the reality of the existing Islamic schools of thought today. Do you see, is this in the fundamentals or the branches? The statement of the jurists: "If a hadith is authentic, it is my school of thought." Is this a fundamental or a branch?

The questioner : It is a fundamental.

The Shaykh : Well, today millions of Muslims do not agree with you on this fundamental. In fact, one of them said: "And it is obligatory to follow one of the learned men from them," from these four. So it is not permissible for you to follow the Sunnah from here and here and here, but you must be a pure Hanafi, or a pure Maliki, or a pure Shafi'i, or a pure Hanbali. How is this, when this narrow sectarianism did not exist before the four Imams? And there were before them tens, indeed hundreds, indeed thousands of Imams, and at the head of the Imams were the four Caliphs. Were there in their time Bakris, Umaris, Uthmanis, or Alis? None of that existed. The disagreement, unfortunately, is not only in the branches, but in the deviation from the fundamentals of the Shari'ah. . Take now whichever of the Imams you wish. I do not mean the Imams of the mosques, because most of them, of course, the earth is inhabited, most of them have no fiqh, and are like a few, with jobs in the departments. I do not mean these people, but I mean the great ones, those who are called scholars and doctors and so on. You will find each one on a school of thought, this one Hanafi and this one Shafi'i. Call them to judge by the Book and the Sunnah, and there is no response. So where is the disagreement in the branches? The disagreement is in the fundamentals, indeed in the fundamentals of the fundamentals.

The questioner : Meaning, it is better for a person to follow the guidance of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and not be fanatical about any of the schools of thought.

The Shaykh : Yes, of course. But here too, there is an important note. Glory be to Allah, the Sunnah of Allah in His creation is excess and deficiency, excess and deficiency, contrary to His saying, the Exalted: .
The continued stagnation of the Muslims, both the common people and the specialists, except for a few individuals, throughout these long centuries, in adhering to a specific school of jurisprudence, has produced a reaction. This reaction was initially good, being a return to the way of the righteous predecessors, namely relying on the Book and the Sunnah without fanaticism for any of the imams of the Muslims. However, this return, because it lacks collective guidelines and rules, has produced a completely opposite reaction. Now, a man who knows nothing of jurisprudence reads a hadith or hears a hadith, and it becomes necessary for him to apply his understanding—or rather, his ignorance—to this hadith. He adopts a ruling from it and proceeds under the delusion that it is easy for every person to be a scholar qualified to derive rulings. That is not the case. For this reason, we always say, as our scholars before us said:
"All good lies in following those who came before, and all evil lies in the innovation of those who came after."
Do you see the first predecessors, the three centuries attested to as the best, the Companions and those who followed them and those who followed them? Were they all scholars of the Book and the Sunnah? No. The fewest of the Companions were the scholars, and the majority of them were not scholars. This is a reality for which our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, established a methodology in His saying: .
The first predecessors knew the extent of their knowledge; that is, they knew themselves and that they were not among the people of knowledge. Therefore, when they needed to know a certain issue, they would ask, because they read in the Qur'an or at least heard the saying of Allah, Mighty and Majestic: .
So our Lord, in this verse, divided the Muslim community into two groups: the people of knowledge and the people of ignorance. He made obligatory upon each group a duty different from the other. He made it obligatory for the one who has no knowledge to ask the people of knowledge, and He made it obligatory for the people of knowledge to answer. He confirmed this in a famous hadith: . Now, unfortunately, the community is not a Muslim community in many, many aspects. But the most dangerous aspect from the Islamic perspective is that it is not Islamic either, meaning from the perspective of being freed from following a scholar without knowing his evidence, which has settled in hearts for hundreds of years. In their claim of being freed from this, we have fallen into an opposite problem, which is that every person issues a ruling for himself, and perhaps for others, without knowledge. He may not even be able to recite a verse as it is read or written in the Noble Qur'an, let alone the Prophetic hadith. And yet, he neglects the application of this verse: . Among the causes of this is the corruption of hearts, the riding of arrogance in people's souls, and self-admiration. So a student of knowledge, if he is a student of knowledge, as soon as he feels he has some knowledge, his inner state becomes, as they say in Syria, "O earth, be firm, no one is above you," while he barely understands a very small amount of knowledge. These people are in one place, and the rigid traditionalists who adhere to the school of jurisprudence, or the schools of jurisprudence, are in another place. The truth is in the middle between them, which is the actual application of the previous verse: .
And they say about the hadiths, mentioning a hadith that has no basis, but it is a wisdom: . Most people today do not know themselves because arrogance and self-admiration have taken hold of them. Allah is the Greatest. A hadith says: . This is one of the diseases with which we are afflicted in this time.

The questioner : This is a hadith.

The Shaykh : Yes, it is an authentic hadith, but: . So the questions are over; let us get up and pray. What did we benefit from you? We ate, we are full, and we are done.


The questioner : The brother's question here says: I heard that of the current Islamic universities, they do not teach creed except the Ash'ari creed, except for two universities. The universities, excuse me, in terms of Arab countries, are in Saudi Arabia and in Qatar. As for, for example, the Jordanian University and the Kuwait University, and so on, they do not teach the correct creed. Is this true?

The Shaykh : Yes, of course, this is true, and this is what we hinted at earlier.

The questioner : Specifically, so that a person realizes much, as you mentioned, that the doctors in the science of jurisprudence and in such-and-such science appear on television and in magazines. If we knew the sources of these people and the sources of their knowledge, Allah willing, we would be cautious of their fatwas or say such-and-such about them. So if you please, address that.

The Shaykh : In any case, what I hinted at is the reality, and I pointed to a part of it earlier when I said that in Morocco, from its east to its west, the Ash'ari creed is taught. Because there is a real correlation: every Maliki in jurisprudence is Ash'ari in creed. Likewise, every Shafi'i in jurisprudence is also Ash'ari in creed. Likewise, the few Hanbalis are also Ash'ari in creed, except for rare exceptions in the present age. And this, without a doubt, is due to the merit of Imam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and those who came after him, who explicitly call to acting according to the Book and the Sunnah, likeThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz and his like. But the three schools, especially the Malikis and the Shafi'is, these people cannot be anything but Ash'aris in creed. And every Hanafi must necessarily be Maturidi. It cannot be otherwise.

The questioner : Must necessarily?

The Shaykh : So you will not find, for example, a Hanafi who is Ash'ari, or a Shafi'i who is Maturidi. This is impossible as a reality. But if you return to the true people of the Sunnah and the people of Hadith, you will find many of them who lived in a Hanafi environment in terms of branches and principles. However, when Allah guided them to the true principles, they did not remain Hanafis, neither in principles nor in branches, but they took the truth wherever it was. Egypt is predominantly Shafi'i in jurisprudence, and there they study Ash'ari creed. And I said earlier that the Turks know nothing but the Maturidi school. The Hanbalis differ; the Hanbalis of the land of Najd differ completely from the Hanbalis in other lands. For example, we in Syria have Hanbalis in some eastern areas outside Damascus, like Dimayr, Rahibah, Dayr 'Atiyah, and the like. These people are Hanbali in the branches but Ash'ari in creed. These people suffered what the Ash'aris suffered, meaning they left the school of their first imam, the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad, and were influenced by the Ash'ari school. And now I do not say "the Ash'ari school" because I said earlier that these Hanbalis of Syria and their like suffered what the Ash'aris suffered. The Ash'aris claim affiliation to Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, but Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari returned from his Ash'arism and followed the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He has a very important book, printed several times, called *Al-Ibanah fi Usul al-Din* (The Clarification of the Principles of Religion). His school in that book is the school of the people of Hadith, the school of Imam Ahmad. I wish the Ash'aris would act according to this book in all lands of Islam, whether in Egypt or here. Because I also observe here that they are predominantly Shafi'i in the branches, and many of them do not know the Maturidi creed, regardless of its correctness or error, as much as they know the Ash'ari school. So the study in the universities in these lands is, in reality, in terms of branches, either rigid adherence to a specific school, or what we called earlier, quoting the Syrian term, "Hanafi-Shafi'i," or what is called in jurisprudential terminology *taqlid* (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) and *talfiq* (juristic preference). There is *taqlid* and there is *talfiq*. *Taqlid* is following a specific imam, and this is, of course, not permissible, whereas *taqlid* is necessary. We said earlier, in commenting on the saying of Allah the Exalted: , that the general public need to ask the people of knowledge, but the people of knowledge include good and blessing; it is not just Zayd and Bakr and the matter is finished. No, whenever a Muslim individual thinks of asking about a certain issue, he must not be fanatical about a specific person, but rather ask whom he believes to be a person of knowledge. In that case, it is obligatory for him to follow him, because . Not for the sake of acting according to their saying, but not for the sake of contradicting them. Of course, acting according to their saying. The current study, called university study, is on the method of *talfiq*. And they call it based on the principle of the authentic hadith: . Glory be to Allah, this description has exceeded many matters. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke these words specifically regarding intoxicants, but we find that this description is applied to many, many matters under a different name. For example, they call some usurious sales "sales," or call them *murabahah* (a cost-plus sale) or one of these light and pleasant names that do not inform the listener of the deviation from the Shari'ah they contain. As for calling dancing and image-making "fine arts," you all know that. Now, jurisprudence is studied under the name of comparative jurisprudence. This is very great if there were a comparison, but the reality is that it is *talfiq* itself. Because what happens is that the specialist doctor in Shari'ah decides the issue according to the differences existing in the schools, and he gets the degree. What happened to the doctor? Well, this doctor, is what he memorizes what he wants to teach to others? And so on. So there is no science studied under the name of comparative jurisprudence. Comparative jurisprudence is, for example, an issue that people are frequently afflicted with and questions about it are numerous, due to the severity of the affliction, as the jurists say. It is that a man, for example, touches a woman intentionally or accidentally. Does his ablution become invalid or not? The doctor who studies comparative jurisprudence tells you that there are three opinions in the issue: The first opinion is that touching a woman does not invalidate the ablution at all, whether with desire or without desire. The second opinion is that it invalidates it at all, whether with desire or without desire. The third opinion is that if it is with desire, it invalidates it, otherwise it does not. So he does not have the ability to make a judgment.

The questioner : Meaning he states these opinions and stops.

The Shaykh : But no, he does not stop, but he adds to the trouble, saying, "My brothers, these are scholars, and each one..."