The Shaykh’s discussion with Abu Yasser (the Mu'tazili) on three issues, namely: the authority of reason
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Abu Yasser ... .
The questioner : The first thing is establishing the Islamic state!
The Shaykh : If Allah wills, we ask Allah to grant us success in taking the means that truly enable us to establish the Islamic state. Before entering into any research that I see being proposed, I think it is necessary to establish reference points for any research that will be conducted. You know, and all those present know, that the Muslims’ reference in case of disagreement is the Book and the Sunnah. As you know, the Sunnah contains what is authentic and what is weak. When we say that we return to the Book and the Sunnah in case of disagreement, we keep in mind during that process that the Sunnah clarifies the Qur'an and explains it. Therefore, it is obligatory for every researcher and Muslim scholar to seek out the authentic Sunnah when he wants to interpret the Noble Qur'an with it. I think this is a point of agreement, not disagreement, is it not?
The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. When I asked to discuss with you, I asked on clear and distinct bases. These clear and distinct bases, as written on this paper, must be read.The Shaykh : 'Abd al-Fattah, as was the condition, that we research what the Muslims disagreed upon. The Muslims disagreed in three aspects. The first aspect is that they disagreed regarding reason, its authority, its implication, and its meaning; Muslims disagreed on this. The second issue is that they disagreed on the methodology for understanding the Book. The third issue is that they disagreed on the methodology for verifying the Sunnah and how to use it as evidence. Therefore, the first research begins with the human being, because the human being is the one obligated. It is not permissible when researching the human being to use a verse or a hadith. This is the research that must be conducted regarding the human being in his capacity as a human being, as the basis for obligation. Therefore, it is not permissible for you to lead the research; rather, the one who leads the research is my being a human being and your being a human being, and that we reason. From here the research begins. The moderator or the session leader reads the paper now. If we agree on it, the research proceeds!
The Shaykh : What is your opinion if it is said, "It is clear from its title that we begin with what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah said, not from the human being and his reason"? This is one point.
The questioner : The moderator must read!
The Shaykh : And another point. I want to make a point that it is necessary that if one of us directs a question to the other, his answer should be concise, taking the shortest path to the answer, and then he can elaborate afterwards. I just directed a question, and I do not think two people would disagree on such a question. So I answered this question. What you wrote and prepared is not a revelation from the sky; it can be discussed and it can be subject to acceptance and rejection. I have now raised an idea that should not have any disagreement. I hope the answer now is concise. Do you agree that if we disagree on something, as the Exalted said:[An-Nisa 4:59] and that if we disagree on the interpretation of a verse, we return to the clarification [An-Nahl 16:44] I hope the answer is concise, and then you have full freedom to elaborate. Do you agree with this or not?
The questioner : Let the moderator read the paper that was agreed upon and that he read to you on the phone, and I am listening!
The Shaykh : The paper, may Allah reward you. We said just now that this can be discussed, accepted, and rejected. Do you believe that what you wrote means it does not accept acceptance and rejection!
The questioner : There is an agreement for the debate that was read to you, my lord.The Shaykh .
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.
The questioner : 'Abd al-Fattah read it to you. This agreement is read, and then we start the research?
The Shaykh : This agreement does not accept discussion!
The questioner : This agreement is read!
The Shaykh : Professor, I insist. The answer must be yes or no, and then the elaboration. And you have whatever you want after that!
The questioner : The moderator answers you; he is the intermediary!
Another questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and blessings and peace be upon Muhammad and upon his family and his Companions. Actually, brother Abu Yasser, before I read and speak, you were very keen on this gathering, and your keenness requires that you make things easy so that we can continue the research. He, considering that we are guests at his home now, asked a question because, in my estimation, it is truly the foundation of the research. Any issue that needs to be raised, he is asking: do you agree that when we disagree, we return to the Book and the Sunnah, or not? The answer is yes, and I have a long elaboration. No, then we read the paper and agree on it!
The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. First, my brother 'Abd al-Fattah, you said the intermediary, you know that for certain. And when you agree...The Shaykh : I said, you were asked...The Shaykh : To sign a paper. And I committed to signing the paper. And you read the paper to my lord...The Shaykh : And I was listening. You read it item by item. I objected to one video, so we crossed it out. And I objected to the introduction of...The Shaykh : Nasir al-Din al-Albani, in that he thought it should be researched, so we crossed it out. So the paper remained the document to which reference is made in the agreement for the research. This paper must be read. One of its clauses is that it is read to the attendees. Therefore, there is a clause in it that the numbers are equal. I will waive the equal numbers, promising you that I will waive the equal numbers, but the agreement that was read to you must be read!
The Shaykh : If you allow me a moment, because there is something that did not happen. We asked him what to do? To put down the points he wants to research. As for him committing to not becoming Abu Shu'ah (a loud voice).
Another questioner : Yes ... the points that were written ...
The Shaykh : No, no, allow me. What was my request of you?
Another questioner : That he commits to ...
The Shaykh : Ah, propriety in the discussion. Not shouting and not raising his voice, as he did with us in that gathering. As for what he puts down, he is free! But what he puts down is presented for research, and he is not more entitled to present an opinion or research than others. The matter is common and permissible for everyone to present his opinion. I have now presented an opinion which, in my view, no Muslim can contradict. So why the argument? Why the discussion? Why the referral to points that were read to me? True, but I did not tell you I am ready to accept this as if it were a revelation from the sky. Rather, it is a field for acceptance and discussion!
Another questioner : We read it, Professor, and we discuss and define, meaning the initial bases of the research, and then we continue!
The Shaykh : Correct. All these points, before we study them, are based on a principle. If we do not agree on it, there is no benefit in the meeting and no benefit in the discussion at all. I say, he asks me a question, and my answer must be clear. For example, is it forbidden or lawful? I say forbidden and explain my opinion. Lawful, I say lawful and explain my opinion. Permissible, not permissible, in brief, then he explains, and then I explain. But deviating from a concise answer and then a detailed one, this does not lead us to research. So now, are these points not based on a concise answer and then elaboration? What prevents us from finishing this point and moving to another?
Another questioner : I am not seeing ... .
The questioner : I insist on reading the paper. We read it, and then! ... We read the paper ... .
The Shaykh : Whatever it is, we must establish a basis for the discussion. Do you agree with this basis?
The questioner : We read the paper.
Another questioner : If you allow me, Professor, to make things easy and we continue, if Allah wills. The paper contains only rules for give and take. When it is read, the brothers will hear it, because it truly has a relationship even in answering the question ... .
The Shaykh : What relationship ... .
Another questioner : It has a relationship in his answer to the question, because he needs to answer and it becomes give and take. Meaning, it defines the bases that both parties commit to!
The Shaykh : Sorry, brother, but is there an answer to this concise question that does not need all this discussion? Because you know from the common proverbs, "The written is clear from its title." If an issue is raised and it is a point of agreement among everyone, do we not answer it except with what is in the document? What is this document? Is it from the revelation of the sky!
Another questioner: No, no.
The Shaykh : This is the work of a person who has his own opinions and his own independent legal reasoning, and he is facing another person who also has his own opinions and independent legal reasoning. Now, this person initially proposes a style of discussion that first puts the two discussants at ease, and then the listeners. We hope that the answer will be brief: permissible, not permissible, I agree, I do not agree, and then the explanation.
The questioner : I insist...
The Shaykh : On the insistence, so we insist on our opinion!
The questioner : I insist on reading the paper, and otherwise, no.
The Shaykh : It is over, it is over. We have given the tea! Is there any doubt about Allah? O Abu Yasser.
The questioner : ...the paper.
The Shaykh : As for this, it is strange, meaning, is there any doubt about Allah? Allah is the Greatest. That is enough, that is enough. Please. And there is no more room.
The questioner : The first thing is establishing the Islamic state!
The Shaykh : If Allah wills, we ask Allah to grant us success in taking the means that truly enable us to establish the Islamic state. Before entering into any research that I see being proposed, I think it is necessary to establish reference points for any research that will be conducted. You know, and all those present know, that the Muslims’ reference in case of disagreement is the Book and the Sunnah. As you know, the Sunnah contains what is authentic and what is weak. When we say that we return to the Book and the Sunnah in case of disagreement, we keep in mind during that process that the Sunnah clarifies the Qur'an and explains it. Therefore, it is obligatory for every researcher and Muslim scholar to seek out the authentic Sunnah when he wants to interpret the Noble Qur'an with it. I think this is a point of agreement, not disagreement, is it not?
The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. When I asked to discuss with you, I asked on clear and distinct bases. These clear and distinct bases, as written on this paper, must be read.The Shaykh : 'Abd al-Fattah, as was the condition, that we research what the Muslims disagreed upon. The Muslims disagreed in three aspects. The first aspect is that they disagreed regarding reason, its authority, its implication, and its meaning; Muslims disagreed on this. The second issue is that they disagreed on the methodology for understanding the Book. The third issue is that they disagreed on the methodology for verifying the Sunnah and how to use it as evidence. Therefore, the first research begins with the human being, because the human being is the one obligated. It is not permissible when researching the human being to use a verse or a hadith. This is the research that must be conducted regarding the human being in his capacity as a human being, as the basis for obligation. Therefore, it is not permissible for you to lead the research; rather, the one who leads the research is my being a human being and your being a human being, and that we reason. From here the research begins. The moderator or the session leader reads the paper now. If we agree on it, the research proceeds!
The Shaykh : What is your opinion if it is said, "It is clear from its title that we begin with what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah said, not from the human being and his reason"? This is one point.
The questioner : The moderator must read!
The Shaykh : And another point. I want to make a point that it is necessary that if one of us directs a question to the other, his answer should be concise, taking the shortest path to the answer, and then he can elaborate afterwards. I just directed a question, and I do not think two people would disagree on such a question. So I answered this question. What you wrote and prepared is not a revelation from the sky; it can be discussed and it can be subject to acceptance and rejection. I have now raised an idea that should not have any disagreement. I hope the answer now is concise. Do you agree that if we disagree on something, as the Exalted said:
And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.
فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر ذلك خير وأحسن تأويلاAnd We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them
وأنزلنا إليك الذكر لتبين للناس ما نزل إليهمThe questioner : Let the moderator read the paper that was agreed upon and that he read to you on the phone, and I am listening!
The Shaykh : The paper, may Allah reward you. We said just now that this can be discussed, accepted, and rejected. Do you believe that what you wrote means it does not accept acceptance and rejection!
The questioner : There is an agreement for the debate that was read to you, my lord.The Shaykh .
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.
The questioner : 'Abd al-Fattah read it to you. This agreement is read, and then we start the research?
The Shaykh : This agreement does not accept discussion!
The questioner : This agreement is read!
The Shaykh : Professor, I insist. The answer must be yes or no, and then the elaboration. And you have whatever you want after that!
The questioner : The moderator answers you; he is the intermediary!
Another questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and blessings and peace be upon Muhammad and upon his family and his Companions. Actually, brother Abu Yasser, before I read and speak, you were very keen on this gathering, and your keenness requires that you make things easy so that we can continue the research. He, considering that we are guests at his home now, asked a question because, in my estimation, it is truly the foundation of the research. Any issue that needs to be raised, he is asking: do you agree that when we disagree, we return to the Book and the Sunnah, or not? The answer is yes, and I have a long elaboration. No, then we read the paper and agree on it!
The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. First, my brother 'Abd al-Fattah, you said the intermediary, you know that for certain. And when you agree...The Shaykh : I said, you were asked...The Shaykh : To sign a paper. And I committed to signing the paper. And you read the paper to my lord...The Shaykh : And I was listening. You read it item by item. I objected to one video, so we crossed it out. And I objected to the introduction of...The Shaykh : Nasir al-Din al-Albani, in that he thought it should be researched, so we crossed it out. So the paper remained the document to which reference is made in the agreement for the research. This paper must be read. One of its clauses is that it is read to the attendees. Therefore, there is a clause in it that the numbers are equal. I will waive the equal numbers, promising you that I will waive the equal numbers, but the agreement that was read to you must be read!
The Shaykh : If you allow me a moment, because there is something that did not happen. We asked him what to do? To put down the points he wants to research. As for him committing to not becoming Abu Shu'ah (a loud voice).
Another questioner : Yes ... the points that were written ...
The Shaykh : No, no, allow me. What was my request of you?
Another questioner : That he commits to ...
The Shaykh : Ah, propriety in the discussion. Not shouting and not raising his voice, as he did with us in that gathering. As for what he puts down, he is free! But what he puts down is presented for research, and he is not more entitled to present an opinion or research than others. The matter is common and permissible for everyone to present his opinion. I have now presented an opinion which, in my view, no Muslim can contradict. So why the argument? Why the discussion? Why the referral to points that were read to me? True, but I did not tell you I am ready to accept this as if it were a revelation from the sky. Rather, it is a field for acceptance and discussion!
Another questioner : We read it, Professor, and we discuss and define, meaning the initial bases of the research, and then we continue!
The Shaykh : Correct. All these points, before we study them, are based on a principle. If we do not agree on it, there is no benefit in the meeting and no benefit in the discussion at all. I say, he asks me a question, and my answer must be clear. For example, is it forbidden or lawful? I say forbidden and explain my opinion. Lawful, I say lawful and explain my opinion. Permissible, not permissible, in brief, then he explains, and then I explain. But deviating from a concise answer and then a detailed one, this does not lead us to research. So now, are these points not based on a concise answer and then elaboration? What prevents us from finishing this point and moving to another?
Another questioner : I am not seeing ... .
The questioner : I insist on reading the paper. We read it, and then! ... We read the paper ... .
The Shaykh : Whatever it is, we must establish a basis for the discussion. Do you agree with this basis?
The questioner : We read the paper.
Another questioner : If you allow me, Professor, to make things easy and we continue, if Allah wills. The paper contains only rules for give and take. When it is read, the brothers will hear it, because it truly has a relationship even in answering the question ... .
The Shaykh : What relationship ... .
Another questioner : It has a relationship in his answer to the question, because he needs to answer and it becomes give and take. Meaning, it defines the bases that both parties commit to!
The Shaykh : Sorry, brother, but is there an answer to this concise question that does not need all this discussion? Because you know from the common proverbs, "The written is clear from its title." If an issue is raised and it is a point of agreement among everyone, do we not answer it except with what is in the document? What is this document? Is it from the revelation of the sky!
Another questioner: No, no.
The Shaykh : This is the work of a person who has his own opinions and his own independent legal reasoning, and he is facing another person who also has his own opinions and independent legal reasoning. Now, this person initially proposes a style of discussion that first puts the two discussants at ease, and then the listeners. We hope that the answer will be brief: permissible, not permissible, I agree, I do not agree, and then the explanation.
The questioner : I insist...
The Shaykh : On the insistence, so we insist on our opinion!
The questioner : I insist on reading the paper, and otherwise, no.
The Shaykh : It is over, it is over. We have given the tea! Is there any doubt about Allah? O Abu Yasser.
The questioner : ...the paper.
The Shaykh : As for this, it is strange, meaning, is there any doubt about Allah? Allah is the Greatest. That is enough, that is enough. Please. And there is no more room.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.