Thread by @AlLaythii, The reality of the differences between Ahl Al Hadīth & the later [...]

The reality of the differences between Ahl Al Hadīth & the later Ashāa’irah:

Point 1: Who are Ahl Al Hadīth?

Ahl Al Hadīth are those who view that the Quran & Sunnah is to be understood at its apparent which is in accordance to & dictated by the language of the early Arabs.

The companions fall under this. How?

The companions understood the Qur’an & Sunnah at its apparent. They took the apparent texts pertaining to the attributes of Allaah without performing Ta’wīl.

This shows that they did not go beyond the text. If this was the case, it would have been transmitted from them.

An example:

Abdīllāh Ibn Umar [d.73AH] said:

“Allaah created 4 things with His hand; The Throne, The Garden of Eden, Adam and the Pen. He then said to the rest of creation: “Be! And it was”

Radd Al Dārimī A’la Bishr Al Marīsī pg.35

Grade: Authentic

If Ibn Umar did not take the text at its apparent, he wouldn’t have said Allaah created 4 things with His hand & the rest of creation with “Be!”

These are Ahl Al Hadīth

Point 2: Who are the later Ashāa’irah?

The Ashāa’irah went through stages:

• Early Ashāa’irah: they’re the followers of Abu-l Hasan Al Ash’arī (d.324AH) and include the likes of Al Bayhaqī (d.458AH) etc

• Later Ashāa’irah: they’re the followers of the likes of Al Juwaynī (d.478AH), Al Ghazāli (d.505AH), Fakhr Al Rāzi (d.604AH), Al Āmidi (d.631AH) and Al Taftāzāni (d.792AH)

The modern Ash’arī school then settled on what was coded by Al Sanūsī (d.895AH) in his “Aqīdah Al Kubra”

The later Ashāa’irah are not from Ahl Al Hadīth. Rather, they’re from Mutakalimīn. But they’re a specific type of Mutakalimīn which is Mutakalimī Ahl Al Ithbāt because they affirm some Sifāt as opposed to
the other sects that fall under the Mutakalimīn like the Mu’tazilah etc

Point 3: What is the reality of the differences between Ahl Al Hadīth & the later Ashāa’irah?

Some say that the differences between these two groups is permitted & tolerable and that there’s no problem in this difference

They also say that Ahl Al Sunnah divided into 3 camps when it came to creed:

1. Ahl Al Hadīth
2. Ashāa’irah
3. Māturidiyyah

And that each of these camps has truth with them and also falsehood.

They also say that not 1 specific camp has a monopoly on the truth

So, Ahl Al Hadīth have correct & wrong beliefs, the Ashāa’irah have correct & wrong beliefs & the Māturidiyyah have correct & wrong beliefs.

They also say that each camp made Ijtihād and so whoever is correct has 2 rewards and the one who erred has 1 reward.

What leads people to say this?

Generally, these statements are based on a false attribution of beliefs & quotes to both camps (Ahl Al Hadīth & the Ashāa’irah) which they then base their view upon.

When, in reality, the situation is different to what they’ve imagined

This belief is based on a presupposition that the meanings of the text (Quran & Sunnah) when it comes to the chapters of creed & Sifāt aren’t Qat’iyyah (decisive/definitive) but Thanniyyah (probable)

Based on this, differences between the 2 camps are tolerable

However, this presupposition is false. Because, in general*, the Sunni creed is not built upon Thanniyyah but upon Qat’iyyah.

*: I stress “in general” because there are certain issues of creed built upon Thanniyyāt. But, in general, the Sunni creed is built upon Qat’iyyāt

Especially when it comes to the attributes of Allaah, this is built upon Qat’iyyāt and not Thanniyyāt.

Furthermore, the rest of the sciences of our Shari’āh is built upon the creed.

So, if creed wasn’t Qat’ī, then it wouldn’t be valid to build upon it the rest of our Islām

Because secondary branches are based upon foundations that are Qat’i and they’re not based upon foundations that are Thanni.

This presupposition is not just rejected by Ahl Al Hadīth, but by the later Ashāa’irah as well.

Both camps view creed as Qat’i and not Thanni

This can be clearly seen in how both camps deal with those who deviate from their creedal views.

Ahl Al Hadīth don’t excuse one who differs in creed. They make Tabdī on him (ie declare him an innovator) and, if necessary, they make Takfīr on him (excommunication from Islām)

A cursory look into the books & quotes of the early generations shows this

Example:

The Early generations clearly state that the one who views the Qur’an as being created is an innovator.

The Early generations clearly state that the one who curses the companions I am innovator

The Early generations did not excuse the one who rejects that Allaah is High & Above. Rather, they declared him to be an innovator

And there are many more examples one can cite.

You can, hopefully, see how severe they were with those who differed in creed

So, how can you say that the meanings of the text when it comes to creed is not Qat’i?

Abu-l Muthaffar Al Sam’ānī (d.489AH) said:

“Those things where differences cannot be tolerable is in the foundational parts of the religion eg Tawhīd, Sifāt...”

قواطع الأدلة في الأصول ١/٣٢٦

Here, Al Bustāmi (d.458AH) describes Al Ash’āri’s 2nd phase as being upon the Mathhab (school) of Ta’tīl (negating the attributes of Allaah) and that he wouldn’t express it openly but he’d hint @ it

Comment:

If differences in creed were tolerable, why such stern criticism?

So we’ve seen that Ahl Al Hadith do not consider differences, in the chapters of creed, to be tolerable.

What about the later Ashāa’irah?

They too hold that differences in this chapter are not tolerable.

Tāj Al Subkī (d.771AH) says:

“The Ashāa’irah have two famous views in affirmation of Sifāt. Is it passed by at it’s apparent along with Tanzīh (Tafwīdh basically) or is it to be interpreted (Ta’wīl basically)?

The [former] view is the view attributed to the Salaf and it’s

the view of Al Imām [ie Al Juwaynī] in his “Risālah Al Nithāmiyya” and in other parts of his words, so his “return” means that he left Ta’wīl for Tafwīdh. And there’s no blaming him for this nor vice-versa as this is a point of Ijtihād. By that [Ijtihad], I mean Tafwīdh or Ta’wīl

However, the major calamity and what’s utterly grievous is to pass by these verses at their apparent and to believe that the apparent is what’s meant by the verse [ie Ahl Al Hadīth’s creed] & that it’s not impossible for the Creator. This is the view of the Mujassimah

[who are] the pagan worshippers who have in their hearts doubts that cause them to follow the Mutashābih. So may Allaah’s curse be upon them, one by one...”

See Tabaqāt Al Shāfi’iyyah 3/177

Observe from this that according to the Ashāa’irah, Ijtihād in creed means:

Either you make Ta’wīl or Tafwīdh.

There is no “other view” that is sound.

There is no “tolerance for a difference of opinion” outside of these two [false] beliefs.

This is clear when you see the severe statements of Tāj Al Subkī against those upon the Ahl Al Hadīth creed

Therefore, the difference between Ahl Al Hadīth and the later Ashāa’irah is not a “tolerable” difference from both sides.

These are the men who know the reality of the differences between the Ahl Al Hadīth creed & the later Ash’āri creed

Is this the type of speech one makes concerning something that’s “a tolerable difference of opinion”

Let’s not play around with the minds of the people

The issues of creed, generally, are Qat’i and not Thanni

Both camps’ scholars do not & will not accept this presupposition

Another doubt thrown is the claim that the Usūl of these 3 “parts to Ahl Al Sunnah” are the same.

What do you mean by Usūl?

They’ll generally say ie the 6 pillars of Imān.

Ok, generally nobody denies the existence of these 6 pillars of Imān.

But scratch that surface pls

And you’ll find oceans of irreconcilable, non-tolerable differences between Ahl Al Hadīth and the later Ashāa’irah in every single pillar of those 6

So how can you, with a straight face, say their Usūl are in agreement?

They may say ie all groups want to do Tanzīh

Ok, but so do the Jahmiyyah. The entire Mu’tazili creed is based on the idea of wanting make Tanzīh [ie removing from Allaah all deficiency]

Why haven’t you entered them into Ahl Al Sunnah??

Why don’t you say the difference between Ahl Al Hadīth & The Mu’tazilah is tolerable?

Don’t the Mu’tazilah meet both your definitions of “Usūl”? So, Why do you excommunicate them from Ahl Al Sunnah?

A problematic stance to hold.

Another point that exposes the reality of the difference between Ahl Al Hadīth and the Ashāa’irah is their methodology in:

• What they deem to be binding evidence
• How they tackle this binding evidence

These methodologies are different to one another & are irreconcilable.

Furthermore, each side claims that their methodology is the truth and that every other methodology is false

Let’s see each methodology

The methodology of Ahl Al Hadīth:

Ahl Al Hadīth’s methodology relies upon treating the textual evidences from the Quran & Sunnah at it’s apparent that is in accordance to the language of the Early Arabs.

Let’s apply this methodology:

Allaah states:

الرحمن على العرش استوى

[20:5]

What does the word “Istiwa” mean according to the methodology of Ahl Al Hadīth?

They say:

We understand what the word Istiwa means based on its apparent meaning in accordance to the language of the Early Arabs

What does Istiwa mean according to the language of the Early Arabs?

It means علا وارتفع

So we understand Istiwa to mean علا وارتفع because that’s what the word means in accordance to the language of the Early Arabs.

This is what’s meant by the “ظاهر” or “apparent”

So if you were to ask Ahl Al Hadīth whether this is the meaning Allaah intended by Istiwa?

They’ll simply say: Yes.

Examples of Ahl Al Hadīth saying this:

Mujahid [d.104AH] said:

“Istiwa [means] علا”

Abu-l Āliyah [d.93AH] said:

“Istiwa [means] ارتفع”

Sahīh Al Bukhārī

As you can see, the Early generations affirm the meaning of the text in accordance to the language of the Early Arabs

However, they differentiate between the meaning of the text & the reality of the attribute

The meaning of the text: علا وارتفع

The reality of the attribute: this is something unknown. Only Allaah knows the reality of His attributes.

Ahl Al Hadīth affirm that this attribute is nothing like the attribute of His creation as He said in [42:11]

This is what Tāj Al Subkī called Tajsīm as we quoted above.

He made those who take these verses at their apparent believing that it’s the apparent meaning which is meant [without Takyīf or Tamthīl] to be Mujassimah who are pagan worshippers.

Ahl Al Hadīth are upon this methodology and they view everyone else who’s not upon this methodology to be upon falsehood.

The Ashāa’irah also believe the same but with their own methodology.

There is NO tolerable difference of opinion between these two camps in this chapter

Final quote on the Ahl Al Hadīth methodology:

Al Sijzī [d.444AH] says:

“What’s necessary to know is that when Allaah describes Himself with an attribute that is comprehensible [ie meaning is known] to the Arabs, and that the speech [of the Shari’ah] has come to them

in [a form] which they recognise [ie understand] and that neither Allaah nor His messenger explained that this [speech] has a meaning different to what you already know from its apparent, then that speech is to be explained according to that apparent meaning"

رسالة السجزي ص ١٥٢

What did the Early Arabs know when it comes to the word Istiwa?

It’s that it means علا وارتفع

Did Allaah or His messenger say that it actually means something other than what the Early Arabs knew it to mean?

No

Therefore, it’s meaning is the apparent meaning

If it were the case that all of the sheer hundreds & thousands of verses & Ahadīth mentioning Allaah’s attributes all had meanings that are contrary to the apparent meaning according to the language of the Early Arabs, the Prophet ﷺ would have explained each one and it’s meaning

In not a single attribute of Allaah mentioned in Quran & Sunnah does the Prophet ﷺ say that it’s meaning is something other than the apparent meaning according to the language of the Early Arabs.

This is proof for the validity of the Ahl Al Hadīth methodology as outlined

This is a methodology agreed upon by Ahl Al Hadīth.

Abu-l Qāsim Al Taymī (d.535AH) said:

“The view of Mālik (d.179AH), Al Thawrī (d.161AH), Al Awzāa’ī (d.157AH), Al Shafi’i (d.204AH), Hammād Ibn Salamah (d.167AH), Hammād Ibn Zayd (d.179AH), Ahmad (d.241AH)

Yahya Ibn Sa’īd Al Qattān (d.198AH), Abd-l Rahmān Ibn Mahdī (d.198AH) and Ishāq Ibn Rāhūyah (d.238AH) is that the attributes of Allaah that He describes Himself with from السمع والبصر والوجه واليدين and all other attributes - they are [taken] upon their apparent meanings that is

well known and famous without the “How” being considered (ie the reality of the attribute is not known so don’t think or delve into it) and without Tashbīh nor Ta’wīl”

العلو للذهبي ص ٢٦٣

What about the methodology of the later Ashāa’irah?

Then it’s built upon one of two pillars:

• Ta’wīl
• Tafwīdh

Which are both built on the premise that the apparent from the text is NOT the meaning. Because what’s apparent from the text is seen as disbelief by them

They see this apparent from the text as Tajsīm & Tashbīh which = disbelief

Take the example in [20:5]

They see that, from the apparent, the Istiwa here is the Istiwa of the created being

That’s what they deem here to be the apparent

So they say we must flee from this apparent

How do they flee from it?

By those two aforementioned pillars:

Either Ta’wīl or Tafwīdh

So they’ll say:

Istiwa means استولى. This is Ta’wīl

Or they’ll say

Allaah knows what Istiwa means.

Someone may say to Ahl Al Hadīth:

“What’s the problem with Ta’wīl here? Don’t you believe that Ta’wil can be made unto the text?”

Ahl Al Hadīth say:

Yes. The problem here isn’t in Ta’wīl per se, the problem is in the principle that forced you resort to Ta’wīl

Why did you make Ta’wīl?

Because you believe that what’s apparent from the text is disbelief so you’re forced to do Ta’wīl

Because you believe that your rational mind is in conflict with the sacred text so you’re forced to do Ta’wīl

Neither reasons are acceptable to Ahl Al Hadīth.

Ahl Al Hadīth don’t judge the sacred text upon something completely foreign to it whose principles are derived from Greek philosophers which will then be used as the basis to reject whatever text that doesn’t satisfy you...

This is their methodology.

After mentioning both methodologies, how can you, with a straight face, say that differences between the two camps are tolerable?

Or that the difference between them is just in “wordings” and not “meanings”?

Each camp does not, cannot & will not allow any room for the other camp because it’s necessary that you can’t

Each camp labels the other as misguided (putting it mildly lol)

There is no tolerable difference of note here in matters of creed.

There’s only 1 group upon the truth

Not multiple groups all having an element of truth and an element of falsehood

Instead of trying to unite the ummah by sweeping its core creedal differences under the carpet with fake platitudes of “we’re all Sunnis and we should unite against Trump or any other Tāghut”

Strive to clarify the right creed & methodology which is the methodology the companions were upon

As has been attributed to Mālik (d.179AH):

لا يصلح آخر هذه الأمة إلا بما صلح به أولها

Ahl Al Hadīth and the later Ashāa’irah, as mentioned previously, differ on what constitutes evidence in the matter of creed.

Ahl Al Hadīth say only 3 sources are an evidence in establishing creed:

• Qur’an
• Authentic Sunnah
• Ijmaa’ of the Sahābah

The later Ashāa’irah say that when it comes to matters related to Ilāhiyyāt & Nubuwwāt (Divine & Prophethood) then:

• Rational evidence sourced from Greek philosophy is the method to establish the above

• Precedence is given to rational evidence over sacred textual passages

that go against the rational evidence and it’s principles sourced from Greek philosophy.

The reason why they can do this is because they consider all of the sacred text (Mutawātir or not) to be Thanni therefore it can’t be used as a binding evidence in issues that are Qat’ī

Al Āmidi (d.631AH) mentions what’s been outlined above

:

غاية المرام في علم الكلام

page 176

These same folk might ask: Then what do Ahl Al Hadīth say about some people of knowledge who took on and accepted the methodology and creed of the Ashāa’irah?

What’s the problem here? Did they claim infallibility for these individuals? They honour the position their knowledge

put them in whilst simultaneously holding the view that not everyone who makes Ijtihād will be correct.

Allaah knows best

Latest Threads Unrolled: