Is it true that universities today in the world do not teach the Salafi creed except in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and if that is the case

The questioner: By Allah, I had a query regarding the brother's question here. I heard one of them say that of the current Islamic universities, the creed taught is only the Ash'ari creed, except for two universities. The universities—excuse me—on the side of Arab countries, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As for the Jordanian University and the Kuwait University, and so on, the correct creed is not taught. Is this true?

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

The questioner: No, my specific point is that even a person who understands much of what the doctors elaborated on in the science of jurisprudence, here and there, appears on television and in magazines. If we knew the sources of these people and the sources of their knowledge—if Allah wills—we would be cautious about their fatwas or say such and such about them. So if you please, comment on this?

The Shaykh: In any case, what you 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—except for a few—every Hanbali is also Ash'ari in creed, except for rare exceptions in the present age. And without doubt, the credit for this goes to Imam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him), and those who came after him, and those who explicitly call to acting by the Book and the Sunnah, like Shaykh Ibn Baz and his like. But these three schools, specifically the Malikis and the Shafi'is, these people cannot be anything but Ash'aris in creed. And every Hanafi is necessarily Maturidi. It cannot be otherwise.
Yes?

The questioner: Necessarily?

The Shaykh: Yes, 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 turn to the people of the Sunnah truly, and the people of hadith, you will find many of them who lived in a Hanafi environment in branches and principles. But when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) guided them to the true principles, they did not remain Hanafis, neither in principles nor in branches. Rather, they took the truth wherever it was. So Egypt is predominantly following the Shafi'i school. There, the Ash'ari creed is taught. 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 lands from Damascus, like al-Damir, al-Rahibah, and Dayr 'Atiyyah, and the like. These people are Hanbalis in branches, and Ash'aris in creed. These people were affected by what affected the Ash'aris; that is: they left the school of their first Imam, the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad, and were influenced by the school of the Ash'aris. And now I do not say by the Ash'ari school; because I said earlier that what affected the Hanbalis of Syria and their like is what affected the Ash'aris. The Ash'aris belong to Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari. But Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari returned from his Ash'ari position and followed the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He has a very important book, printed several times, named: "Al-Ibanah fi Usul al-Din." His school there is on the school of the people of hadith, the school of Imam Ahmad. If only the Ash'aris would act by this book in all lands of Islam. If it is, for example, in Egypt, or here; because I also observe that here, predominantly in terms of branches, they follow the Shafi'i school. 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 truth, in terms of branches, either rigidity to a specific school, or on the method of what we said, transmitted from the Syrian terminology: "Hanafi-Shafi'i," or what is called in jurisprudential terminology by "tafwiq" (compilation). There is taqlid (blind following) and there is tawfiq (compilation).
Taqlid is following a specific Imam, and this is of course not permissible. Whereas taqlid is necessary. We said earlier in the commentary on His saying (Exalted is He): that the general people need to ask the people of knowledge. But the people of knowledge include goodness and blessing, it is not Zayd and Bakr and the matter is ended. No, so whenever a Muslim individual wants to ask about a certain issue, he must not target and be biased toward a specific person. Rather, he asks the one he believes is from the people of knowledge. So then, it is obligatory for him to follow, because for what reason? For acting by their saying or for contradicting them? Of course, for acting by their saying. The study now that is called university study is on the method of tawfiq (compilation). And they call it by the rule of the authentic hadith: , Glory to Allah! This description has exceeded many matters greatly. The Messenger (peace be upon him) spoke this word specifically regarding intoxicants. But we find that this description is called by a name other than its own, relating to many and very many matters. For example, they call some usurious sales "sale," or call it murabahah, or one of these light and pleasant names which do not indicate to the listener what they contain of deviation from the Shari'ah. As for calling dancing and image-making "fine arts," you all know that.
Now, jurisprudence is taught under the name of comparative jurisprudence. This is very great if it were in comparison. But the truth is that it is tawfiq (compilation) itself. Because what happens is that the doctor specialized in Shari'ah presents the issue on the faces of disagreement existing in the schools. But in the result, he does not prefer one, he does not say: "And the correct of these sayings is such and such saying with such and such evidence." Rather, he presents the sayings as he read them. And these poor students are lost in confusion. Because the professor who is teaching the subject does not have this maturity and scientific strength that enables him to prefer one saying over another. Let alone to teach them, and they are the students. So what is the fruit? The fruit is that the student is satisfied that there is disagreement in the issue. And what happens, and this is our experience for more than half a century, when you say: "My brother, the Sunnah is such and such," he says to you: "My brother, there is disagreement in the issue." And he supports this answer with the hadith that has no basis: "The disagreement of my Ummah is a mercy." And therefore, we, the callers to the Sunnah, are attributed to strictness and affectation in religion. And some of them may say this explicitly. Why? Because we say: "The truth is such and such." And they mean this doctor now in Shari'ah, in the recent past, was a student. At the end of the year, he took a degree. What happened? He became a doctor. Good. This doctor who was taught is the one who wants to teach it to others. And so on. So there is no knowledge taught under the name of comparative jurisprudence. Comparative jurisprudence is that it is said, for example, an issue that people are afflicted with a lot, and questions multiply around it due to the severity of the affliction with it, as the jurists say. And it is that a man, for example, touched a woman intentionally or accidentally. Did his wudu' break or not? The doctor who teaches comparative jurisprudence tells you: "There are three sayings in the issue."

The questioner: This is what should be, I mean.

The Shaykh: The first saying: That touching a woman does not break the wudu' absolutely; whether it was with desire or without desire. The second saying: It breaks absolutely; whether it was with desire or without desire. The third saying: If it was with desire, it broke, otherwise it did not. So he does not have the ability to make a preference.

The questioner : That is, he states these opinions and stops there.

The Shaykh : No; he does not stand, but he adds mud to the wet clay and a note to the lute. He says: "These people are scholars, and each one has his own evidence, and the disagreement of my Ummah is a mercy, so each of the attendees takes from these opinions whatever suits him." You, for example, may have been blessed by Allah with knowledge of the Sunnah, and you say: "My brother, kissing does not invalidate the wudu." Excuse me, I jumped to the more serious matter, and this is a mistake in scientific methodology. Touching does not invalidate the wudu; why? Because many hadiths have been established with us that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) touched or was touched by his wife while in the middle of prayer, and he continued his prayer. If touching had invalidated the wudu, he would have broken the prayer and renewed the wudu.
And more than that, we now make the jump that it is established that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would kiss and then stand for prayer without performing wudu. This is immediately contradicted. It is not a proof, but this opinion is contrary to the Shafi'i madhhab, and the reality here, as we said earlier, is that the Shafi'i madhhab is the predominant one. Then they find people who support them with these whispers, and the Sunnah is trampled under the name of comparative jurisprudence, saying that there are two opinions in the issue!!
There is no harm in reminding you that there are two opinions in the issue, the story of that mufti; because some people today say: "My brother, knowledge is dry, it needs a bit of this mixed in." There are two opinions in the issue, and a story is told around it, which in reality represents the reality of many scholars. Allah is the Greatest! What do you think is written in the books today, before I tell you that story? One of the well-known scholars of al-Azhar, from before this era, says: "If there are two opinions in the issue, we issue a fatwa with one of them according to the dirham and the dinar."

The questioner : Allah is the Greatest! Allah is the Greatest!

The Shaykh : That is to say, for example, a poor man comes, afraid that his wife has been divorced from him. He runs to the shaykh and says: "My master, the shaykh, this and that happened to me—like your issue today. What is the solution?" If there are two opinions in the issue, one that the woman was divorced from him, and one that the woman is not divorced, then if that man offered the bribe, he issues a fatwa for him with what suits him, and if he did not offer it, he says to him: "Your wife has been divorced from you!!" What is the solution, O Shaykh?

The questioner : Like the one who brought a shaykh to recite for the deceased and gave him ten qirsh... . [Everyone laughs!].

The Shaykh : That story, they claim, is that one of the muftis in the past went out for a need, a journey for Hajj or 'Umrah, so he left his place. He had a father who could hardly understand anything. He said to him: "My father, I am now traveling, and you will sit in my place and receive the people and be gentle with them." He said to him: "My son, what do I know? I am, as you know, an ignorant man." He said to him: "I will give you a rule to rely on. Whenever a man comes to you and asks a question, tell him: 'There are two opinions in the issue.'" A man comes, for example: "My master, I performed wudu and touched a woman. Did my wudu become invalid or not?" You tell him: "There are two opinions in the issue." "I laughed in prayer, I spoke in prayer while distracted; did my prayer become invalid or is it valid?" "There are two opinions in the issue," and so on. The son, the mufti, was absent, and the father sat in his place. The people began to flock to him as usual, questions came and the answer came as a stamped, prepared cliché: "There are two opinions in the issue." One of the smart people who used to frequent the council noticed that the shaykh had no knowledge; and therefore he covered his ignorance with this word: "There are two opinions in the issue." This smart man says to his neighbor: "Go, ask the mufti, tell him: 'Is there doubt in Allah?'" He said to him: "O Master Shaykh, is there doubt in Allah?" He said: "There are two opinions in the issue!!"
They have ruined the people with the word what? It is not necessary to say: "There are two opinions in the issue," a noble Prophetic hadith.

The questioner : The first one says: "This is permissible and this is permissible."

The Shaykh : Allah is the Helper! Yes, this is the fabrication!

The questioner : This means he is a fool!

The Shaykh : Now, call the adhan so we can go, Mr. Abu Ayyub.