How to respond to those who say that Imam Malik was a Mu'azzilah, and likewise some of the Companions?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: How do we respond to those who say that Malik used to attribute the attributes to Allah without specifying how, and that some of the Companions said: "We affirm them as they came"?
The Shaykh : It appears that the Mu'azzilah emerged after the innovation of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) had appeared. They were unable to counter the people of ta'til, so they said, "Then we will attribute the attributes to Allah without specifying how." This is because the people of ta'til—you know that the Jahmiyyah had become a major force—pressed upon the scholars of the Sunnah, and they were unable to resist them, so they said, "Then we will not say this or that; we will attribute the attributes to Allah without specifying how." As for the one who claims that Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) was a Mu'azzilah, he has lied. His statement is: "The istiwaa' (rising above the Throne) is not unknown", meaning it is known and no one is ignorant of it. As for: "We affirm them as they came", yes, by Allah, they said it this way: we affirm them as they came without specifying how. This is the truth. If we affirm them as they came, do we affirm only the wording without the meaning? The answer is: No, because these are words that came for meanings. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) did not send them down as empty words with no meaning, or with a hundred meanings and we never know what is intended. So we say: We affirm them as they came, meaning words for meanings. Then their saying "without specifying how" indicates the affirmation of the meaning, because if the meaning were not affirmed, it would not be correct for them to say "without specifying how." Denying the "how" of something that does not exist is a vain statement, and the speech of the Salaf is free from such. So if someone argues with this statement of the Salaf, we say: This is evidence against you, not for you.
And I will give you a benefit from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him): Every person who argues with a valid proof for a falsehood will have that proof become evidence against him. Subhan Allah, this is a rule, and Shaykh al-Islam adhered to it. He said: "I commit to the fact that every person who brings a valid proof—meaning a proof that is established without doubt—for a falsehood, I commit to making it evidence against him". Because the argument of the people of falsehood with a valid proof means that the scent of the meaning is perceived from it. Is it possible that the meaning perceived from this argument is false? It is not possible. Therefore, reflect, if Allah opens up for you all the false statements whose proponents argue with a valid proof from the Book and the Sunnah, you will see that what they argued with is evidence against them. This phrase I mentioned: "We affirm them as they came without specifying how," now we understand that it refutes them from two angles:
The first angle: If we affirm them as they came, that necessitates the affirmation of the meaning, because we know that Allah will not address us with something whose meaning we do not know at all. That cannot be, especially in the names of Allah and His attributes, which are the creed.
The second: Their saying "without specifying how" indicates that the meaning exists, and if the essence of the meaning were not affirmed, it would not be correct for them to say "without specifying how."
The Shaykh : It appears that the Mu'azzilah emerged after the innovation of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes) had appeared. They were unable to counter the people of ta'til, so they said, "Then we will attribute the attributes to Allah without specifying how." This is because the people of ta'til—you know that the Jahmiyyah had become a major force—pressed upon the scholars of the Sunnah, and they were unable to resist them, so they said, "Then we will not say this or that; we will attribute the attributes to Allah without specifying how." As for the one who claims that Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) was a Mu'azzilah, he has lied. His statement is: "The istiwaa' (rising above the Throne) is not unknown", meaning it is known and no one is ignorant of it. As for: "We affirm them as they came", yes, by Allah, they said it this way: we affirm them as they came without specifying how. This is the truth. If we affirm them as they came, do we affirm only the wording without the meaning? The answer is: No, because these are words that came for meanings. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) did not send them down as empty words with no meaning, or with a hundred meanings and we never know what is intended. So we say: We affirm them as they came, meaning words for meanings. Then their saying "without specifying how" indicates the affirmation of the meaning, because if the meaning were not affirmed, it would not be correct for them to say "without specifying how." Denying the "how" of something that does not exist is a vain statement, and the speech of the Salaf is free from such. So if someone argues with this statement of the Salaf, we say: This is evidence against you, not for you.
And I will give you a benefit from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him): Every person who argues with a valid proof for a falsehood will have that proof become evidence against him. Subhan Allah, this is a rule, and Shaykh al-Islam adhered to it. He said: "I commit to the fact that every person who brings a valid proof—meaning a proof that is established without doubt—for a falsehood, I commit to making it evidence against him". Because the argument of the people of falsehood with a valid proof means that the scent of the meaning is perceived from it. Is it possible that the meaning perceived from this argument is false? It is not possible. Therefore, reflect, if Allah opens up for you all the false statements whose proponents argue with a valid proof from the Book and the Sunnah, you will see that what they argued with is evidence against them. This phrase I mentioned: "We affirm them as they came without specifying how," now we understand that it refutes them from two angles:
The first angle: If we affirm them as they came, that necessitates the affirmation of the meaning, because we know that Allah will not address us with something whose meaning we do not know at all. That cannot be, especially in the names of Allah and His attributes, which are the creed.
The second: Their saying "without specifying how" indicates that the meaning exists, and if the essence of the meaning were not affirmed, it would not be correct for them to say "without specifying how."