Explanation of the author's statement: ". . . And the statement of this fool contains both truth and falsehood: As for the truth, it is his saying: 'The methodology of the Salaf is safer.' And as for the falsehood, it is his saying"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : But we say that "the statement of this fool contains truth and falsehood. As for the truth, it is his saying that the methodology of the Salaf is safer". We agree with him on this and say: You have spoken the truth and justified it. The methodology of the Salaf is safer. But your saying "that the methodology of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser" is a lie. The methodology of the Khalaf is not more knowledgeable or wiser. Do you agree with us on this, or not? Do you agree that the methodology of the Salaf is safer and the methodology of the Khalaf is neither more knowledgeable nor wiser? As for it not being safer, he himself has admitted that; he says it is not safer. The safer one is the methodology of the Salaf. But he claimed that the methodology of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser, and we say this claim is false and we do not believe it. Is that clear, everyone? Okay, what is the proof of its invalidity?
If someone says: You claimed that this man's statement that the methodology of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser is false. Give us evidence for its invalidity, otherwise it is true and not false. The evidence
First, "it contradicts his statement that the methodology of the Salaf is safer". What contradicts his statement? That the methodology of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser. It contradicts the statement that the methodology of the Salaf is safer. It contradicts it. And it is known that contradictory speech is false. What is the nature of the contradiction? He said: "For the fact that the methodology of the Salaf is safer is a necessary consequence of it being more knowledgeable and wiser." When you acknowledge that the methodology of the Salaf is safer, its implication is that it is more knowledgeable and wiser. What is the basis for that?
He said: "Since there is no safety except through knowledge and wisdom: knowledge of the causes of safety, and wisdom in following those causes". And this is correct. No one can be safe except through knowledge and wisdom as well: knowledge of the causes of safety and wisdom in following them. If a man fell into water that would drown him, would he be saved or not? He would not be saved except by two things: that he has knowledge of swimming, and second, that he acts according to this knowledge. Is that right? We have three men here. One man fell into water that would drown him, but he was not trained. He started flailing and thrashing, hoping to be saved, but he drowned. Why? Because he was ignorant; he did not have knowledge of the causes of safety. The second man fell into water that would drown him, and he was trained, but he did not use his knowledge. Yes, he stayed on the water and did not move at all. What is his outcome? Drowning. His outcome is that he will drown. And the third man fell into water that would drown him, and he was trained, so he moved according to his knowledge. Will he be saved or not? He will be saved and safe until he is saved and escapes. Therefore, it is impossible for safety to exist except through knowledge and wisdom: knowledge of the causes of safety and wisdom in following those causes. So as long as you said that the methodology of the Salaf is safer, its implication is your acknowledgment that it is more knowledgeable and wiser, since there is no safety except through knowledge and wisdom. Is this good, or not? You see, this statement made by the Shaykh al-Islam is found in the depths of the books. For example, with al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) and many scholars who speak about the methodology of the Asha'irah, they say this phrase: they say the methodology of the Salaf is safer and the methodology of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser. Yes.
If someone says: You claimed that this man's statement that the methodology of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser is false. Give us evidence for its invalidity, otherwise it is true and not false. The evidence
First, "it contradicts his statement that the methodology of the Salaf is safer". What contradicts his statement? That the methodology of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser. It contradicts the statement that the methodology of the Salaf is safer. It contradicts it. And it is known that contradictory speech is false. What is the nature of the contradiction? He said: "For the fact that the methodology of the Salaf is safer is a necessary consequence of it being more knowledgeable and wiser." When you acknowledge that the methodology of the Salaf is safer, its implication is that it is more knowledgeable and wiser. What is the basis for that?
He said: "Since there is no safety except through knowledge and wisdom: knowledge of the causes of safety, and wisdom in following those causes". And this is correct. No one can be safe except through knowledge and wisdom as well: knowledge of the causes of safety and wisdom in following them. If a man fell into water that would drown him, would he be saved or not? He would not be saved except by two things: that he has knowledge of swimming, and second, that he acts according to this knowledge. Is that right? We have three men here. One man fell into water that would drown him, but he was not trained. He started flailing and thrashing, hoping to be saved, but he drowned. Why? Because he was ignorant; he did not have knowledge of the causes of safety. The second man fell into water that would drown him, and he was trained, but he did not use his knowledge. Yes, he stayed on the water and did not move at all. What is his outcome? Drowning. His outcome is that he will drown. And the third man fell into water that would drown him, and he was trained, so he moved according to his knowledge. Will he be saved or not? He will be saved and safe until he is saved and escapes. Therefore, it is impossible for safety to exist except through knowledge and wisdom: knowledge of the causes of safety and wisdom in following those causes. So as long as you said that the methodology of the Salaf is safer, its implication is your acknowledgment that it is more knowledgeable and wiser, since there is no safety except through knowledge and wisdom. Is this good, or not? You see, this statement made by the Shaykh al-Islam is found in the depths of the books. For example, with al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) and many scholars who speak about the methodology of the Asha'irah, they say this phrase: they say the methodology of the Salaf is safer and the methodology of the Khalaf is more knowledgeable and wiser. Yes.