Explanation of the author's statement: "And the people of Kalam and logic call the people of the Sunnah 'Hashawiyyah' from al-hashw, which is that in which there is no good, and they call them 'Nawabit'."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Listen, it has returned to the people of Kalam and logic; they call the people of the Sunnah Hashawiyyah, Nawabit, and Ghatha. Three descriptions, O 'Abd al-Rahman.
Hashawiyyah: from al-hashw, which is that in which there is no good, or from al-hashw, which are the extremities of people. Yes.
If you hear in the speech of the people of logic and Kalam, "This is a Hashawi" or "This is the opinion of the Hashawiyyah," whom do they mean by that? The people of the Sunnah and the community.
Poor people, the people of the Sunnah and the community, a target for everyone. Yes.
Fine, he says: "They call them Nawabit". Nawabit? What does that mean? Huh? Nawabit are the seeds of the crop that grow with it, in which there is no good. Is there anyone among you a farmer? Huh? It is known, right? Yes, it is known, huh? Nawabit have no good in them and they harm the crop, so now when the farmers harvest the crop, they set fire to the land, they set fires in it to kill these Nawabit. They say, "You, the people of the Sunnah and the community, you are Nawabit, there is no good in you, you do not know logic, and you do not know the methods of Kalam, nor the debates and arguments."
So we say, praise be to Allah who has spared us from what He has afflicted you with. These arguments and debates have only increased you in doubt. Yes.
And listen to the words of your leaders, and we have previously mentioned the words of al-Razi and others who are among the greats of the people of Kalam, and how they arrived at doubt. Fine.
They also call them "Ghatha", which is the filth that streams carry. Do you know what Ghatha is? Ghatha like the dregs of a flood. Fine, "because these logicians claimed that whoever does not have knowledge of logic is not certain of his affair". For this reason, they call logic in their view the scale by which things are weighed, and they say that one cannot reach certainty in divine matters until one studies the science of logic. Is this a lie or jurisprudence? It is a lie, and refuge is sought in Allah, because we say: according to your words, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), the Companions, and those who followed them in excellence, and whoever did not study logic, none of them reached certainty in divine matters. Is this reasonable? They are, by Allah, greater than you in certainty and stronger and more firm in faith, but even so he says: one cannot reach certainty unless one studies the science of logic and begins to engage in the arguments and debates that contain nothing but the prolongation of time, and then doubt and confusion in the end.
He says: "so he is not certain of his affair, but is rather among the rabble in whom there is no good".
He said: "And the truth is that this knowledge of which they boast does not benefit from the truth at all". And this is the reality; in fact, I say it does not increase certainty but only doubt. You find the person who is on his fitrah and whose belief is sound, his affair is clear to him without hesitation. But these logicians and Kalam scholars have so much doubt, confusion, and hesitation that their affair ends up in nothing, and yet they say, "We are the owners of the scale, we are the owners of the intellects, and we are those who cannot be wrong, and everything we have is certainty." But that is not the case, as the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book "The Refutation of the Logicians". The Shaykh al-Islam, I have seen two of his books, one of which is: "The Refutation of the Logicians", which is a broad book, and the second is "The Refutation of Logic", a small book, smaller than the former, but it is more focused and more beneficial for the student of knowledge than the book "The Refutation of the Logicians," because the book "The Refutation of the Logicians" is somewhat broad, but this "The Refutation of Logic" is concise and organized, and it mentions the evidence that invalidates the science of...
And what is the benefit of this? Huh? None. Its benefit is the waste of time. As long as the intelligent does not need it, and the dull does not benefit from it, if an intelligent person engages with it, his time is wasted because he does not need it, and if a dull person engages with it, his time is wasted because he will not benefit from it. So it is a waste of time.
And the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed on the permissibility of learning logic. Some of them forbade it, some said it is recommended, and some even said it is obligatory. "So al-Nawawi and Ibn al-Salah forbade it, *** and some said it should be taught"
And that it is not befitting for a person to leave it.
But the correct opinion according to some scholars is that it is permissible for a person with a clear intellect and sound belief.
And in my view, it is not permissible. Why? Because as long as it is a waste of time and one does not benefit from it, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2500Sahih (Darussalam).
Yes, if a person needs it, look, if a person needs it because he wants to refute a group who do not know how to refute except through logic, then what? It becomes obligatory for him to learn it.
So learning it initially is not permissible, but learning it out of necessity to refute their people and others is permissible and there is no harm in it, and it may even be obligatory.
For this reason, we find that the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him), although he speaks about logic in this manner, we find that he argues with the people of logic using their logic and their language, in order to make the truth clear to them.
Hashawiyyah: from al-hashw, which is that in which there is no good, or from al-hashw, which are the extremities of people. Yes.
If you hear in the speech of the people of logic and Kalam, "This is a Hashawi" or "This is the opinion of the Hashawiyyah," whom do they mean by that? The people of the Sunnah and the community.
Poor people, the people of the Sunnah and the community, a target for everyone. Yes.
Fine, he says: "They call them Nawabit". Nawabit? What does that mean? Huh? Nawabit are the seeds of the crop that grow with it, in which there is no good. Is there anyone among you a farmer? Huh? It is known, right? Yes, it is known, huh? Nawabit have no good in them and they harm the crop, so now when the farmers harvest the crop, they set fire to the land, they set fires in it to kill these Nawabit. They say, "You, the people of the Sunnah and the community, you are Nawabit, there is no good in you, you do not know logic, and you do not know the methods of Kalam, nor the debates and arguments."
So we say, praise be to Allah who has spared us from what He has afflicted you with. These arguments and debates have only increased you in doubt. Yes.
And listen to the words of your leaders, and we have previously mentioned the words of al-Razi and others who are among the greats of the people of Kalam, and how they arrived at doubt. Fine.
They also call them "Ghatha", which is the filth that streams carry. Do you know what Ghatha is? Ghatha like the dregs of a flood. Fine, "because these logicians claimed that whoever does not have knowledge of logic is not certain of his affair". For this reason, they call logic in their view the scale by which things are weighed, and they say that one cannot reach certainty in divine matters until one studies the science of logic. Is this a lie or jurisprudence? It is a lie, and refuge is sought in Allah, because we say: according to your words, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), the Companions, and those who followed them in excellence, and whoever did not study logic, none of them reached certainty in divine matters. Is this reasonable? They are, by Allah, greater than you in certainty and stronger and more firm in faith, but even so he says: one cannot reach certainty unless one studies the science of logic and begins to engage in the arguments and debates that contain nothing but the prolongation of time, and then doubt and confusion in the end.
He says: "so he is not certain of his affair, but is rather among the rabble in whom there is no good".
He said: "And the truth is that this knowledge of which they boast does not benefit from the truth at all". And this is the reality; in fact, I say it does not increase certainty but only doubt. You find the person who is on his fitrah and whose belief is sound, his affair is clear to him without hesitation. But these logicians and Kalam scholars have so much doubt, confusion, and hesitation that their affair ends up in nothing, and yet they say, "We are the owners of the scale, we are the owners of the intellects, and we are those who cannot be wrong, and everything we have is certainty." But that is not the case, as the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book "The Refutation of the Logicians". The Shaykh al-Islam, I have seen two of his books, one of which is: "The Refutation of the Logicians", which is a broad book, and the second is "The Refutation of Logic", a small book, smaller than the former, but it is more focused and more beneficial for the student of knowledge than the book "The Refutation of the Logicians," because the book "The Refutation of the Logicians" is somewhat broad, but this "The Refutation of Logic" is concise and organized, and it mentions the evidence that invalidates the science of...
And what is the benefit of this? Huh? None. Its benefit is the waste of time. As long as the intelligent does not need it, and the dull does not benefit from it, if an intelligent person engages with it, his time is wasted because he does not need it, and if a dull person engages with it, his time is wasted because he will not benefit from it. So it is a waste of time.
And the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed on the permissibility of learning logic. Some of them forbade it, some said it is recommended, and some even said it is obligatory. "So al-Nawawi and Ibn al-Salah forbade it, *** and some said it should be taught"
And that it is not befitting for a person to leave it.
But the correct opinion according to some scholars is that it is permissible for a person with a clear intellect and sound belief.
And in my view, it is not permissible. Why? Because as long as it is a waste of time and one does not benefit from it, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
And whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him say what is good or remain silent.
من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر فليقل خيرا أو ليصمتYes, if a person needs it, look, if a person needs it because he wants to refute a group who do not know how to refute except through logic, then what? It becomes obligatory for him to learn it.
So learning it initially is not permissible, but learning it out of necessity to refute their people and others is permissible and there is no harm in it, and it may even be obligatory.
For this reason, we find that the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him), although he speaks about logic in this manner, we find that he argues with the people of logic using their logic and their language, in order to make the truth clear to them.