Discussion of those who differ in the chapter of attributes.

Mashhur: My Shaykh, regarding a jurist who is an innovator, I wish to point out or ask about what has been reported from some of the earlier scholars who differed with us, or whom we differ with, in an important chapter of the oneness of Allah, specifically the chapter of attributes. The question is about the criterion for excusing someone based on outward and inward matters. Is there a way to know this, or not?

The Shaykh : Know what?

The questioner : The excuse for differing or in religious innovation, outwardly and inwardly. You were kind enough to say that a jurist, if he exercises independent legal reasoning and falls into some innovation, as long as he is a jurist and did not intend to oppose, and knew the methodology of the pious predecessors, and did not contradict it, he is a jurist. So is he called a jurist-innovator? That is, are these two terms combined? A jurist-innovator. And then, what is the criterion for us to know whether this is knowledge or not? This becomes difficult, and it may become very difficult when we begin to apply the rule in practice. We found, for example, in practical application, that great and senior scholars in all eras and lands, especially those who were before the Shaykh al-Islam specifically, fell into confusion. And this confusion led the people of innovation in the era, or the methodologies of the innovators in this era, to cling to it. For example, the words of al-Nawawi; I do not want to give examples like Ibn Hajar. The words of al-Nawawi before the Shaykh al-Islam: al-Nawawi fell into dozens of figurative interpretations that contradict the creed. He followed a path, meaning he resembled the people of innovation in this, by saying the doctrine of delegation sometimes, and saying figurative interpretation at other times. He explicitly stated that this is the methodology of the pious predecessors. So how is al-Nawawi, for example, excused? Is he excused, or is he called a jurist-innovator? And do we distinguish between al-Nawawi and those who repeat his words now, or not? We do not repeat. That is, the sum of the questions, if you would be kind.

The Shaykh : If there are questions in your speech, I hope you will remind me of the first question. Let us start and answer.
Mashhur: The criterion for the excuse, and does it combine?

The Shaykh : Do you mean the excuse with us, or with our Lord?
Mashhur: With us, so that we do not call him a jurist-innovator, so that we remove his being an innovator.

The Shaykh : We said earlier that whoever we know does not care about what the pious predecessors were upon is the innovator and the one who contradicts the Book and the Sunnah.
Mashhur: Meaning by signs from his life and his conduct.

The Shaykh : Yes. And whoever we know follows the pious predecessors, but in a certain issue, whether it is, as we said earlier, a branch issue or a fundamental issue, the Salafi methodology did not become clear to him, so he spoke with his opinion and independent legal reasoning, he is rewarded without doubt, even if it is in a chapter.
Mashhur: Even if it is in a complete chapter, like attributes, for example?

The Shaykh : If we conceptualize this, then it is so, because it may be a theoretical matter.
Mashhur: Meaning al-Nawawi, for example.

The Shaykh : In a complete chapter.
Mashhur: In the chapter of attributes.

The Shaykh : Al-Nawawi in the chapter of attributes, is he not a Muslim with regard to many of the attributes without figurative interpretation?
Mashhur: Rarely.

The Shaykh : That is not reasonable. How is it rare? Hearing and seeing.
Mashhur: In what agrees with the Asha'irah, he certainly agrees with them in this.

The Shaykh : The Asha'irah do not concern me now. I was speaking about al-Nawawi. It is not possible, meaning, to say that al-Nawawi does not have faith, even in some of the attributes. But he may interpret the attributes, and he may delegate.
Mashhur: But figurative interpretation occurred a lot in his words, or delegation.

The Shaykh : No problem, my brother. The research is not now in the details, whether it occurred in a little or a lot. But the research is: what is the criterion or the rule for distinguishing? So we say: whoever is known to follow the methodology of the pious predecessors, and yet contradicts it, then he is without doubt an innovator?
Mashhur: And he knew that this is the methodology of the pious predecessors.

The Shaykh : This is the qualification we mention: one who knows the methodology of the Salaf and then contradicts it is the innovator. And I see now, as you know, and some of our brothers present, perhaps this is what prompts me to seize this opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: as we said earlier, there is no difference for us between error in the fundamentals or in the branches, but the difference is between one who intends the Sunnah and one who intends to contradict it. What I want to say now, as a way of killing two birds with one stone, is that now many of our distinguished scholars in Saudi Arabia, in Pakistan, and in other countries that care about hadith and the Sunnah, as you know, place their hands after bowing. I say this is a religious innovation, and I have said this for more than thirty years. But I do not believe that those who do this are innovators; rather, I sometimes pray behind some of the imams who do this innovation, so I do as they do, based on his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Why is this an innovation in my view? Because it contradicts the reports and hadiths narrated from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) as a way of life. He used to pray, and it is not mentioned in the Sunnah at all, nor in any report from the righteous Salaf, that they did this. So this is a type of religious innovation in which the masses fell, and then some of the people of the Sunnah followed them in it. This is a good example of the topic. What is their evidence? General proofs. There is no explicit text that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) placed his hands after raising his head from bowing; rather, they argued with general proofs. And this is the approach of the innovators who introduced into Islam thousands, if not tens of thousands, of innovations, arguing with general proofs. What is our evidence, we the people of the Sunnah, who place our hands after bowing and those who do not? What is our evidence against these innovators? My brother, these texts that you argue with and from which you understand the permissibility of what you do: the righteous Salaf first knew them, and second, they were much more eager than you to apply what they indicated, if they indicated what you understand from them. So if they did not do it, it means your understanding is wrong. From here, we argue with the noble verse, as you know: The path of the believers encompasses all of Islam, fundamentally and branch-wise; it is not limited to creed, in creed, in worship, in transactions, in behavior, in morals, and so on. Therefore, we care very much, and very much indeed, about the methodology of the righteous Salaf, because they were purer in heart and more eager in worship and action, and so on. So when it does not come to us, not even from an imam of the Muslim imams, let it be from the four, let it be from the forty, let it be from the four hundred, that it is prescribed to place the hands after raising the head from bowing, I classify it as an innovation, but I do not classify the one who does this as an innovator, because he relied on a text from which he assumed it indicates this, but I establish the argument against him with his own school, which he agrees with me in, which is: "All good is in following the Salaf, and all evil is in the innovation of the Khalaf." With this criterion, we can know whether to classify a person among the innovators or among the independent reasoners. If it becomes clear to us that his line is such that when the way of the righteous Salaf becomes clear to him, he submits and does not contradict, then he is with us and on the line. If he slips in a particular detail or in many details, we seek an excuse for him. But as you see to this day, and this may be the completion of the answer to your question: those who follow al-Nawawi or others, these people are either scholars or non-scholars. And we said earlier, if they are non-scholars, they must ask the people of knowledge. If they ask about the Imam al-Nawawi in his books and find that, meaning they are convinced by it, and the argument and proof from the others who belong to acting by the Book and the Sunnah and the righteous Salaf has not come to them, then these people are also excused, because they are not required to be imams who perform independent legal reasoning, due to the saying of the Lord of the Worlds mentioned earlier: But these people have no excuse when they cling to the sayings of some of the later scholars, like the example we mentioned, the Imam al-Nawawi. Rather, they are not excused because they do not listen to the evidence of the opposing Muslims. So when it is said to them, Allah the Exalted said: My brother, the path of the believers is first the Companions, then the Tabi'un, then the imams. What do you have with al-Nawawi? He comes and argues with you with falsehood, as you declare. He tells you al-Nawawi does not understand, al-Nawawi understands, and the Companion understands. So which understanding must you cling to? At that point, it becomes clear that he is among the people of innovation if the truth and correctness do not become clear to him. And for this reason, our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, disciplined and directed the general Muslims with His saying, Blessed and Exalted is He, in the noble Qur'an: The important thing, and this is the summary of the answer: just as the scholars who perform independent legal reasoning must devote their effort to knowing the truth in which people differ, so the general Muslims must devote their effort to knowing the truth in which the imams differ, each according to his capacity and ability. At least, for example, I say you have Zayd from the scholars and you have 'Amr. Ah, you found your inclination with Zayd and 'Amr. You found that he says, Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said. Zayd says, "This is how it is, my brother, the scholars, the shaykhs, and so on." If this is the case, he has not followed the truth, because he knew that 'Amr is more knowledgeable and Zayd is not a scholar. This is the least that the general people should strive for. I do not know if anything remains of your question?