Explanation of the author's statement: ". . . . The second: It is said that the truth in this matter is either in what the Salaf said, or in what the Khalaf said.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : As for the second aspect, it is rational, "The second is that it is said: either it is said that the truth in this matter — that is, in the matter of the names and attributes — is either in what the Salaf said, or in what the Khalaf said", or not?
We say now that we have two schools: the school of the Khalaf, which is ta'wil (figurative interpretation) and tahrif (distortion of a text's meaning), and the school of the Salaf, which is believing in them according to their apparent meaning. So now we have two ways. The truth is either in what the Salaf said, or in what the Khalaf said, is that not so?
The student : Yes
The Shaykh : Okay, I do not like you to keep saying "yes" all the time, because someone among you might say, "Or in what neither these nor those said," because the rational division does not necessitate that the truth is confined to only this and that. It might be in a third statement, other than the statement of the Salaf and other than the statement of the Khalaf, or not? Yes, perhaps someone might say this, but the answer to it is that we say there is no third statement. There is no third statement. In reality, there is no third statement, and the comparison now is only between the way of the Salaf and the way of the Khalaf. That is, by consensus, there is no third way, neither Salafi nor Khalafi. And we are speaking to those who preferred the way of the Khalaf and said that it is more knowledgeable and more wise. So we say to them now: the truth is either in what the Salaf said or in what the Khalaf said. If someone says, "Or in a third statement other than the two statements," what do we say? We say, "Bring it." There is no third statement, there is no third statement, because in reality the issue is confined either to the school of the Salaf or to the school of the Khalaf, right?
The questioner : ... Is it possible ... a third statement?
The Shaykh : No, it is not possible, it was not
The student: ... If it is contrary, it is from the Khalaf
The Shaykh : Yes, but it might be, for example, that the school of the Salaf is ta'wil (figurative interpretation), and someone comes and says, "I do not interpret, nor do I take the apparent meaning," yes ... We say that no one has been found with this. They are all either saying this or that. There is only the school of the Salaf or the school of the Khalaf, in any case, yes.
"The second is false". What is the second? That the truth is in what the Khalaf said, not in what the Salaf said, not in what the Salaf said. Why is it false?
"Because it necessitates that Allah and His Messenger, and the foremost of the first among the emigrants and the Helpers, have spoken in falsehood explicitly or apparently, and have not spoken once in the truth that must be believed, neither explicitly nor apparently", correct? The school of the Salaf is indicated by the Book and the Sunnah. If we say that the truth is in what the Khalaf said, it necessitates that the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the speech of the Salaf all did not speak in the truth that must be believed. If we say that the truth that must be believed is not what the Khalaf were upon, and it is not found in the Qur'an, nor in the Sunnah, nor in the speech of the Companions, what is necessitated? It is necessitated that they did not speak in the truth, neither the Qur'an, nor the Sunnah, nor the Companions, yes. And if they did not speak in the truth, and they spoke in falsehood, because[Yunus 10:32], if they did not speak in the truth, then they spoke in falsehood. Thus, the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the speech of the Companions would be filled with falsehood and devoid of truth. Can anyone's foot be steady on this necessary consequence? Can anyone's foot be steady on this necessary consequence and say, "Yes, I commit to the fact that the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the speech of the Companions are all filled with falsehood and devoid of truth"? Does anyone stand firm on this? No one stands firm. And therefore, if anyone's statement stands firm on this
"then the existence of the Book and the Sunnah would be pure harm in the foundation of the religion, and leaving the people without a Book or Sunnah would be better for them and more upright. And this is manifestly false"
Do you understand this picture, good? We say to the one who said that the school of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and more wise: come, this is the school of the Salaf and this is the school of the Khalaf. The truth does not go beyond them, or not? Either it is in what the Salaf said, or in what the Khalaf said. We want to descend with him to the level of his argument. If you say that it is in what the Khalaf said, what is necessitated by your statement? That the Book, the Sunnah, the speech of the Companions, and the imams of the Ummah are all false, because you see that the truth is in what is other than that, and that they did not speak once in the truth that must be believed, is that not so? Then what is the value of the Book and the Sunnah now?
The student: They have no value
The Shaykh : It is not that they have no value; their value is harm to the Ummah, because through them the establishment of falsehood and the absence of truth occurred. Thus, the existence of the Book and the Sunnah became harm in the foundation of the religion, which is the oneness of Allah the Exalted with His names and attributes, right? And leaving the people without a Book or Sunnah is better, as long as it is all established as false and does not speak in the truth, then it is better for us to be free from it. And I do not think a believer in Allah and the Last Day would stand firm on this matter, absolutely not. Yes, if anyone said this necessary consequence, he would declare disbelief upon himself, and this is a clear matter. The scholars say that the falsity of the necessary consequence indicates the falsity of the necessitated thing. The falsity of the necessary consequence indicates the falsity of the necessitated thing. And when it becomes clear to us that this necessary consequence is false, we know with certainty that the necessitated thing, which is that the school of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and more wise, is false, false in every case. Okay, these are two aspects. The first aspect is a sensory, legal proof, and the second aspect is a rational, theoretical proof. No one can ever escape from them. This, yes.
We say now that we have two schools: the school of the Khalaf, which is ta'wil (figurative interpretation) and tahrif (distortion of a text's meaning), and the school of the Salaf, which is believing in them according to their apparent meaning. So now we have two ways. The truth is either in what the Salaf said, or in what the Khalaf said, is that not so?
The student : Yes
The Shaykh : Okay, I do not like you to keep saying "yes" all the time, because someone among you might say, "Or in what neither these nor those said," because the rational division does not necessitate that the truth is confined to only this and that. It might be in a third statement, other than the statement of the Salaf and other than the statement of the Khalaf, or not? Yes, perhaps someone might say this, but the answer to it is that we say there is no third statement. There is no third statement. In reality, there is no third statement, and the comparison now is only between the way of the Salaf and the way of the Khalaf. That is, by consensus, there is no third way, neither Salafi nor Khalafi. And we are speaking to those who preferred the way of the Khalaf and said that it is more knowledgeable and more wise. So we say to them now: the truth is either in what the Salaf said or in what the Khalaf said. If someone says, "Or in a third statement other than the two statements," what do we say? We say, "Bring it." There is no third statement, there is no third statement, because in reality the issue is confined either to the school of the Salaf or to the school of the Khalaf, right?
The questioner : ... Is it possible ... a third statement?
The Shaykh : No, it is not possible, it was not
The student: ... If it is contrary, it is from the Khalaf
The Shaykh : Yes, but it might be, for example, that the school of the Salaf is ta'wil (figurative interpretation), and someone comes and says, "I do not interpret, nor do I take the apparent meaning," yes ... We say that no one has been found with this. They are all either saying this or that. There is only the school of the Salaf or the school of the Khalaf, in any case, yes.
"The second is false". What is the second? That the truth is in what the Khalaf said, not in what the Salaf said, not in what the Salaf said. Why is it false?
"Because it necessitates that Allah and His Messenger, and the foremost of the first among the emigrants and the Helpers, have spoken in falsehood explicitly or apparently, and have not spoken once in the truth that must be believed, neither explicitly nor apparently", correct? The school of the Salaf is indicated by the Book and the Sunnah. If we say that the truth is in what the Khalaf said, it necessitates that the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the speech of the Salaf all did not speak in the truth that must be believed. If we say that the truth that must be believed is not what the Khalaf were upon, and it is not found in the Qur'an, nor in the Sunnah, nor in the speech of the Companions, what is necessitated? It is necessitated that they did not speak in the truth, neither the Qur'an, nor the Sunnah, nor the Companions, yes. And if they did not speak in the truth, and they spoke in falsehood, because
what can be beyond truth except error
ماذا بعد الحق إلا الضلال"then the existence of the Book and the Sunnah would be pure harm in the foundation of the religion, and leaving the people without a Book or Sunnah would be better for them and more upright. And this is manifestly false"
Do you understand this picture, good? We say to the one who said that the school of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and more wise: come, this is the school of the Salaf and this is the school of the Khalaf. The truth does not go beyond them, or not? Either it is in what the Salaf said, or in what the Khalaf said. We want to descend with him to the level of his argument. If you say that it is in what the Khalaf said, what is necessitated by your statement? That the Book, the Sunnah, the speech of the Companions, and the imams of the Ummah are all false, because you see that the truth is in what is other than that, and that they did not speak once in the truth that must be believed, is that not so? Then what is the value of the Book and the Sunnah now?
The student: They have no value
The Shaykh : It is not that they have no value; their value is harm to the Ummah, because through them the establishment of falsehood and the absence of truth occurred. Thus, the existence of the Book and the Sunnah became harm in the foundation of the religion, which is the oneness of Allah the Exalted with His names and attributes, right? And leaving the people without a Book or Sunnah is better, as long as it is all established as false and does not speak in the truth, then it is better for us to be free from it. And I do not think a believer in Allah and the Last Day would stand firm on this matter, absolutely not. Yes, if anyone said this necessary consequence, he would declare disbelief upon himself, and this is a clear matter. The scholars say that the falsity of the necessary consequence indicates the falsity of the necessitated thing. The falsity of the necessary consequence indicates the falsity of the necessitated thing. And when it becomes clear to us that this necessary consequence is false, we know with certainty that the necessitated thing, which is that the school of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and more wise, is false, false in every case. Okay, these are two aspects. The first aspect is a sensory, legal proof, and the second aspect is a rational, theoretical proof. No one can ever escape from them. This, yes.