Is the statement of Shaykh al-Islam: "And the created things have no beginning" to mean that they are eternal with Allah?

Al-Halabi: Our Shaykh, when I said a moment ago that... is the statement of Shaykh al-Islam that the created things have no beginning to mean that they are eternal 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, our 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 it is created?

The Shaykh : Continuing, yes indeed.
Al-Halabi: Okay, does the one who makes this continuous in the future not make it continuous in the past, and both of them are nothing but created things?

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, our Shaykh. May Allah make your ending good.

The Shaykh : Amen, all of us. Here we cut off the argument 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 they did not distinguish between its being a specific act that is eternal and the type of the specific act being eternal, like the celestial sphere which is created, a created thing preceded by non-existence, and so is everything else".

The Shaykh : This is it.

The questioner : Meaning there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence.
Wafiq: My master, this is a great deal regarding Shaykh al-Islam, very much so.

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

The Shaykh : He has a very detailed research in his commentary on 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 holds to the eternity of created things like the eternity of 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 the determination of the first creation. We do not say all this in front of this man so that we do not 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 about created things that they 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.
Wafiq: Okay, where does this come from, where is this statement of Shaykh al-Islam?

The Shaykh : It is not important where this is from, the important thing is whether this is a declaration of disbelief while he says: There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence?

The questioner : Although the poet's verse is correct in this: "You are the litigant and the judge."
So, when the brother brought me the many texts that everything other than Allah is created, I saw him affected greatly, even when Shaykh Ali said: "We came because 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."
Wafiq: ... I told him we want a fatwa from Dr. Ali al-Faqir, we will say: Is 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?
Wafiq: Yes.

The Shaykh : Hold him on 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 now?

The Shaykh : Do you 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 : Okay, 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 in 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.
Ibn Hazm's statement: "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 whole world 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 'Abd Allah, the Qurayshi, the Hashimite, sent in Makkah, the emigrant to Madinah, is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to all jinn and men until the Day of Resurrection, and that the religion of Islam is..." indicating 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 one who opposes it, and he said: "They agreed that Allah alone has no partner, the Creator of everything other than Him, and that He was always alone with nothing else, then He created all things when He willed, and that the soul is created, the Throne is created, and the whole world is created", I said: Ibn Taymiyyah, as for the agreement 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 one who opposes this or opposes that, for the Qadariyyah who say that the actions of animals were not created by Allah are too many to be mentioned 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 groups of the people of hadith and jurisprudence were attributed to this, and they did not agree on declaring these people disbelievers, rather 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 finish, our 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: ...

The questioner : There was a man next to him wearing a suit, he puts a line on this and after ten lines 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?
Wafiq: By Allah, it appears that there is, because things like the Qadariyyah and such, that the Ummah differs on declaring them disbelievers.

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

The questioner : He transmitted that Ibn Hazm transmitted the consensus, and Ibn Taymiyyah compelled him by saying he holds the opposite of this consensus, and supported him in that.
Al-Halabi: Oh, what a beautiful text this is! "Also, he mentioned in his book *Al-Milal wa al-Nihal* that the Companions and the Imams of Ifta do not declare as disbelievers one who errs in a matter of belief or in the branches of jurisprudence."

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
Al-Halabi: Ah, our Shaykh. (Shaykh Ali al-Halabi laughs, may Allah benefit us through him.)

The Shaykh : Ah, we know that distinguishing between the fundamentals and the branches has no basis.
Al-Halabi: "And if he meant by his statement that the Muslims are in agreement on this, that is more eloquent. It is known that such a report of consensus was not transmitted by him based on 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 one of the most apparent matters among the community, he reported the consensus on this. Then he believed that whoever opposes the consensus is a disbeliever by consensus. Thus, his report of this consensus is based on these two premises, in which disagreement is established in each. More astonishing than that is his report 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 things as He willed. 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 is the hadith of 'Imran ibn Husayn from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):

First of all, there was nothing but Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the Heavens and the Earth.

كان الله ولا شيء قبله وكان عرشه على الماء ، وكتب في الذكر كل شيء وخلق السموات والأرض

Sahih al-Bukhari 3191

And in another wording:

and He then created the Heavens and the Earth

ثم خلق السموات والأرض

Sahih al-Bukhari 7418

This hadith was narrated in *Sahih al-Bukhari* with three wordings. It was narrated:

Allah was, and there was nothing before Him

كان الله ولا شيء قبله

And it was narrated:

and there was nothing other than Him

ولا شيء غيره

And it was narrated:

and there was nothing with Him

ولا شيء معه

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 the narration of his statement is not Muslim.
Al-Halabi: Yes, with a wording that is with him, which is in al-Bukhari. Ibn Hajar says, and in other than al-Bukhari: , but did you come across it, our Shaykh, in any of the books of terminology?

The Shaykh : By Allah, I spoke about the *takhrij* of *Al-'Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah*, but I do not remember now.
Al-Halabi: He remembers that he did not come across it 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 Him." Yes, but "nothing with Him," 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 along.
Al-Halabi: "He only said one of these wordings, and the other two were narrated by meaning. And at that time, what suits the wording established from him in the other authentic hadith is that he used to..."

The Shaykh : Before Him.
Al-Halabi: Before Him. "What is established from him in the other authentic hadith is that he used to say in his supplication:

You are the First and there is nothing after You; You are the Last and there is nothing after You. You are the Most High, and there is nothing above You, and You are the Most Near and there is nothing nearer than You.

أنت الأول فليس قبلك شيء وأنت الآخر فليس بعدك شيء وأنت الظاهر فليس فوقك شيء وأنت الباطن فليس دونك شيء

Sunan Ibn Majah 3831Sahih (Darussalam)

So his saying in this:

You are the First and there is nothing after You

أنت الأول فليس قبلك شيء

Sunan Ibn Majah 3831Sahih (Darussalam)

suits his saying:

Allah was, and there was nothing before Him

كان الله ولا شيء قبله

The discussion of this hadith and others has been elaborated in other places. The purpose here is to speak about what some people suppose to be consensus. This phrase is not in the Book of Allah, and if this hadith were an explicit text in what is mentioned, it is not *mutawatir*. How many authentic hadiths have much disagreement in their meaning? How much more so when the purpose of the hadith is not what is mentioned, and we do not know these phrases from the Companions, the Successors, and the Imams of the Muslims. How can consensus be claimed on them, and consensus on the disbelief of one who opposes that? But the known consensus is what the community 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. If the claimant claims consensus on this and the disbelief of one who opposes this, his statement would be directed. And in the news of Allah that He created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six days, there is nothing that negates the existence of a created thing before them, nor does it negate 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 *salasil* like pottery, and He created the jinn from a *marid* of fire. How, when it is established in the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf, in which no disagreement 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 existed before that, and the water existed 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:

Indeed, Allah decreed the measures of the creation or the creatures fifty thousand years before He created the heavens and the earth, and His Throne was over the water

إن الله قدر مقادير الخلق أو الخلائق قبل أن يخلق السموات والأرض بخمسين ألف سنة وكان عرشه على الماء

And He, the Exalted, informed that He rose to the lowest heaven while it was smoke:

and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."

فقال لها وللأرض ائتيا طوعا أو كرها قالتا أتينا طائعين

[Fussilat 41:11]

And it is established from more than one of the Companions and the Successors and others from the scholars of the Muslims that He created the heaven from the vapor of water, and similar to that are the reports that you utter, which point to what the People of the Book say about the Torah and what they have of inherited knowledge from the prophets. The testimony of the People of the Book that agrees with what is in the Qur'an or the Sunnah is accepted, as in the saying of the Exalted:

Say, [O Muhammad], "Sufficient is Allah as Witness between me and you, and [the witness of] whoever has knowledge of the Scripture."

قل كفى بالله شهيدا بيني وبينكم ومن عنده علم الكتاب

[Ar-Ra'd 13:43]

and its parallels in the Qur'an.
And in this place, two groups erred:
A group from the people of *kalam* (theology) from the Jews and 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 *jawhar al-fard* (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 that transform the individual substances 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: We have not witnessed the creation of any of the entities, but the Lord originated the individual substances, and the creation after that is only the origination of accidents that stand with them.
And another group is even further from the Shari'ah and reason than these people. They interpret the creation of the heavens and the earth to mean interpenetration, causation, and bringing into existence by the essence. They say that the celestial sphere is ancient and eternal, caused by the Lord, and that it is necessitated by its own essence, having always existed and continuing to exist. Thus, their assertion of necessity is the meaning of their assertion of generation, for whatever comes into being from another without that other's choice has been generated from it, especially if it is a living being. And they assert the eternity of the celestial sphere itself, that it has always existed and continues to exist. So if it is said that the Muslims have unanimously agreed on the opposite of their statement, or on the disbelief of one who holds their view, that would be a valid statement. For it is known necessarily 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 claims that the Creator has always been in a state of denial of the divine attributes, and that action and speech

The Shaykh : ... .
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 Maker was not ever inactive, and action and speech upon Him are impossible without a new cause, necessitating His transition from impossibility to possibility and necessitating that the Lord become capable of action."

The Shaykh : Capable.
Al-Halabi: "Thus, the Lord becomes capable of action, or of action and speech, after He was not capable of that. This call and its like are known to be corrupt in reason, as well as in the Shari'ah, according to the consensus of the people of intellect. It is known to those who have knowledge of the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus that the Shari'ah has never come with this, nor with what indicates it. However, some of the people of Kalam (theology) assumed that this is the religion of the people of the religions, and they argued for it using the speech that the Salaf and the Imams rejected from them, namely that whatever is not free from accidents is an accident. What the Salaf and the Imams rejected from them was the false speech in which they contradicted the Shari'ah and reason. The discussion 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 individual. The statement of the Salaf and the Imams was mentioned that Allah has always been speaking whenever He wills, 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 is established, just as its existence in the future is established, which also has no end. And that everything other than Allah the Exalted is created, having been after it was not, and there is nothing ancient with His antiquity. Rather, that is impossible in reason and false in the Shari'ah, for Allah has informed that He is the Creator of all things. The statement that the Creator is a complete, eternal cause necessitating its effect is false in principle and in the Shari'ah. Its implication is that it is necessarily impossible for a complete cause to be accompanied by the occurrence of something from the world, for accidents, after they were not, cannot be accompanied by their effect. Rather, it has been clarified that the statement that the actor is a complete cause necessitating the acted-upon is false, and that the action does not occur except by creating something, but there is a difference between the occurrence of the specific thing and the occurrence of accidents one after another.
And it has been established by certain proofs that the Lord is an actor by His choice and His power, and that if it is said He is necessitated by His essence, if what is meant by that is that He necessitates by His will and His power what He wills, then this does not contradict His action by His will and His power. But if what is meant by that is what the materialists and philosophers like Ibn Sina and his like say, that an essence abstracted from attributes necessitated the world with what is in it of different, accidental matters, then this is one of the most corrupt statements in reason and in revelation. For establishing an essence abstracted from attributes, or establishing an existence abstracted from all restrictions, or restricted by negation, is not specific to an existential matter that cannot be realized in the external world, but the mind estimates it as it estimates all 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 stopped at his limit by the explicit statement of Ibn Taymiyyah that He is the Creator of all things, and that if he says there are accidents with no 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, the Creator of all things. So from where do you want to declare him a disbeliever?
Wafiq: Everything other than Allah is created.
Al-Halabi: ... His statement that no created thing exists without a created thing before it clarifies the fundamental issue, which is what is the first created thing. So Shaykh al-Islam does not have a preferred position in this issue.

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

The Shaykh : Just, and then what is his opinion of the Mu'tazilah that Ibn Taymiyyah referred to in his previous speech, that they say that man creates his own actions? Does he declare them disbelievers?
Ibn Taymiyyah does not declare them disbelievers because there is a doubt in their case. So you are holding onto Ibn Taymiyyah and declaring him a disbeliever because you assume that he says that Allah is not the Creator of all things, and he says to 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 before it, but every created thing is preceded by non-existence. So what remains for you to hold onto to declare 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 : Just, the matter is finished.
Wafiq: Shaykh, in a point in the previous session, this Hasan al-Saqaf wanted to drive a wedge — they call it among the people — a wedge, and he said you contradict your Shaykh, Shaykh Nasir, with the chain, such and such. So based on the speech you have just favored us with, it appears that we believe that Ibn Taymiyyah erred in this speech despite the existence of the text.

The Shaykh : Specify, my brother?
Wafiq: The speech which is: No created thing exists without being preceded by its own non-existence to what has no beginning. Do we err with Ibn Taymiyyah in this speech despite the existence of the text?

The Shaykh : We err, yes.
Wafiq: So we did not acknowledge his error of Ibn Taymiyyah in that session.
Al-Halabi: He said by 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 with Ibn Taymiyyah in this, that every created thing is preceded by a created thing, not that every created thing is preceded by its own non-existence, in this we agree with him.

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

The Shaykh : It is this.
Al-Halabi: This is what we err him in.

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

The Shaykh : We have two cases, I hope you pay attention to them. Ibn Taymiyyah says: No created thing exists without being preceded by a created thing before it, no created thing exists without a created thing before it, and so on to what has no beginning. We do not say this, because it contradicts, first, the explicit hadith: The majority said the Throne, and others said the Pen. So the scholars, as if they agreed that there is a first created thing, agreed that there is a first created thing, but they differed in determining this created thing. So Ibn Taymiyyah erred from two aspects in my opinion:
The first aspect: that he narrated the difference of the scholars in determining the first created thing, and mentioned that the statement of the majority 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: And no created thing exists without being preceded by a created thing, and so on to what has no beginning, contradicts this which he narrated from the people of knowledge, along with its contradiction of the explicit hadith. And even if he interpreted it, I think you saw this in my takhrij of the explanation of al-Tahawiyyah, that the first thing Allah created is the created thing, there is no subject and predicate, it is finished. No, while what I mentioned from some narrations, and I think it is from Musnad Abu Ya'la, and Allah knows best, the time is far, subject and predicate.
Al-Halabi: .

The Shaykh : Yes, so the point is, we do not contradict Ibn Taymiyyah in his being: "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, this is what we accuse Allah of. I advise, in brief, that the man be stopped at his limit by the explicit statement of Ibn Taymiyyah 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 the Ranks of Consensus, and the case is finished. As for his statement: No created thing exists without a created thing before it, if he means the non-ending of created things from the first, we are not Taymiyyis, and this is what 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.
Wafiq: Okay, Shaykh, we want to confirm something, meaning, before we came here, what we said earlier had settled in our minds.

The Shaykh : And what is it?
Wafiq: We want to see the Shaykh's opinion in detail... meaning, everything that came from Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) that everything other than Allah is created, we are clear that he denies that there is anything ancient with Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He).

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

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

The Shaykh : This is actually without problem, but this is not the topic of accidents 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 : Two chapters that open into one another.
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, O Allah.