Is the creed of the Salafis the same creed that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) held? If so, bring a text from the Companions indicating that

The Shaykh : The praise is for Allah; we praise Him, seek His help, and seek His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our souls and the bad of our deeds. Whom Allah guides, none can mislead, and whom He misleads, none can guide. And I bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. We begin tonight directly by receiving questions that may be available from some of our brothers, and we will answer them, if Allah wills, with what Allah makes easy for us. Then we will shorten the session as much as possible due to circumstances. Although these are temporary, there is nothing in them that is disturbing. We are with you until ten-thirty, and at most until eleven. So rely on Allah and bring what you have. Please proceed.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, is the creed held by the Salafis the creed of the Companions? For some people claim or say, if it is the creed of the Companions, then bring us even one Companion who said regarding the attributes, "We believe in the meaning and we refer the modality." What is your statement?

The Shaykh : We reverse the question and then answer this response. Is there a Companion who interpreted the interpretations of the later generations? We need one or two examples.

The questioner : They sometimes mention that Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) interpreted a verse from the Book of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He?

The Shaykh : Fine, if he interpreted it, what led him to the interpretation? And was that the methodology of the early Companions? In answer to the first question, we say that the righteous Salaf did not need to explain what was clear to them, as clear as the sun at noon. The previous example is exactly like if someone said, "Give us one example of a Companion who said this is the doer, this is the object, this is the object of specification, this is for the state, and so on of the terms established after the Companions and after the Salaf to regulate the understanding of texts according to the Quranic and authentic Arabic style. We cannot bring them a text from such texts that the scholars who established the rules of grammar and the rules of morphology, as well as the other sciences, including the principles of jurisprudence and the principles of hadith, agreed upon.
This is because the early Companions were pure Arabs, so they did not need to explain what the Salafis who claim affiliation to the righteous Salaf explain today. This is because they understand the texts related to the verses of attributes and the hadiths of attributes as the Salaf understood them. So the important thing is that the original rule is not interpretation; the original rule is non-interpretation. And this original rule is agreed upon by all scholars, even those who interpret any Arabic speech, whether it relates to verses of attributes or hadiths of attributes, or relates to any Arabic report. They all agree and say, for example, "The original rule for every Arabic sentence is to take it in its literal sense, not its figurative sense. If the literal sense is impossible, then they say, 'We resort to the figurative sense.' Now, this rule agreed upon by the Salaf and the Khalaf, we are on this rule.
So we say to them, the first Arabs, the Companions, whoseThe questioner : understanding of those texts is following this rule that the Khalaf are on, let alone the Salaf. So when Allah the Mighty and Majestic said: What does the Arab understand regarding the angels from the word "the angels came"? Does he understand the interpreted, figurative meaning, or does he understand the literal meaning? There is no doubt that the answer will be that he understands the literal meaning. We will say to him, "Give us a text that the Companions interpreted the coming of the angels with the literal meaning." He will not be able to reach that at all. Why? Because the matter is clear to them; they follow a scientific rule agreed upon not only by the Salaf but also by the Khalaf. So what they said about this easy, simple example is the same as our answer to the question you clarified or directed just now. The truth and reality, we say that these deniers of attributes are influenced by the science of logic, which takes many of its followers out of the circle of following into the circle of innovation. So when they raise this question, it means that there is no rule for understanding the texts of the Shari'ah at all. Because we cannot imagine that everyone who claims knowledge, whether Salafi or Khalafi, must interpret a text in the Quran or the Sunnah according to the rule mentioned just now, which is "the original is the literal, not the figurative." So when any of these Khalafis comes to us and interprets for us an interpretation of a certain text, we say to him, "What is your basis for this interpretation? Do you have a text from the Companions, from the Tabi'un, from the followers of the Tabi'un? The Tabi'un will have to return to the language. And then we say, "This is our argument to you: why do you interpret the texts whose apparent meaning does not please you and in which there is no problem? The problem, as is the original, comes from asking how (takyif) and likening (tashbih). For this reason, the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The original of the deniers of attributes is that they fell into likening. So when they wanted to escape from likening, they resorted to interpretation. If they had taken, for example, His saying, the Exalted: And likewise, and likewise Surat al-Ikhlas If they had stopped at this text, they would not have needed interpretation. Because their end is interpretation, which is that they understood these verses according to the requirement of likening. If we say "Your Lord came," meaning as befits His Majesty, so likewise the angels. The angels are also a creation of Allah, but there is no doubt that their coming does not resemble the coming of humans, nor the jinn who were created from fire; their coming and going and returning does not resemble in any way the coming of humans. So do we interpret the coming related to the jinn or the coming related to the angels, or do we say that the coming of every being is commensurate with that being? This is how the texts of the Book and the Sunnah should be understood: on the Arabic rule that the original in every sentence is the literal, not the figurative. If the literal is impossible, it is turned to the figurative. This is the answer to that question.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : Then something else comes to my mind, which is that the question means not giving weight to the understanding of the Imams who claim to adhere to their knowledge and understanding, while here they give no weight at all to their understanding. Although the Imams are those whose methodology and style in interpreting verses and interpreting hadiths we followed. Therefore, many of the scholars of the Salaf warned the general people not to sit with the people of desires, because they are people of doubts and raising problems. And unfortunately, many of the people of knowledge cannot give a convincing answer that is in accordance with the Book and the Sunnah on the one hand, and follows correct reason on the other. Many people cannot present the argument and explanation to those who were influenced by the doubts and problems raised by the people of desires and innovations. Therefore, they closed the door and forbade mixing with the people of innovation and desires, and others.

The questioner: May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.