A not-so-new paradigm for understanding Ahlus-Sunnah vs Ahl-bid`ah

Based on some of what was presented above, one would think there is no choice but to treat with great harshness anyone and everyone who says “taqabbalALLahu” to you after prayer. Or says “have a blessed jumuah”. Or counts adhkaar on a string of beads. Or even says, “in a manner that befits His majesty” as the Salaf never said that when describing Allah – think about that innovation. But there’s more to the story than above. Or rather, those are general rulings completely deprived of nuance. So let’s delve into the nuance, shall we?

Positions among the Salaf regarding taking knowledge from the people of innovation

When one looks closer at the words of the Salaf, you see that they describe a people who are low and shunned, and “hiding”, one has to think deeper. Why are they hiding? Because they were essentially zanaadiqah and their innovations were so far beyond the pale that there was doubt about their Islam. And some dressed in the garb of hadeeth and there was risked that they could alter a hadeeth with a single letter they misremember that could carry great theological implications.

There is a gulf of difference between zandaqah (apostasy in Islamic garb) and other innovations less than that – even if there are lawazim (logical necessities) that theoretically lead to apostatic beliefs. Most scholars say that “the necessary outcome of an opinion from an imam is not necessarily his opinion” [ليس لازم المذهب مذهبه].^[1]For example, if one says “Prophethood is a skill” (like the Christians) does not necessarily reject the finality of prophethood or claim that so-and-so is a Prophet after Muhammad ﷺ if people … Continue reading And with the Sunnah compiled, the historic sects having solidified, their boundaries known, it is far easier to distinguish whose statements are “utter disbelief” and whose statements potentially lead there. Many issues of qadr are like that.

It is clear that when these ideologies were growing, the Salaf warned greatly against them, as they should have. But now that they have solidified, and their conclusions and outcomes known, it is still possible to refute them, but their boundaries are known, and their schools have spread by the decree of Allah, and so the fear is not as great, because it is known, and not unknown. And Allah knows best. This may also differ from time and place, but I am speaking globally on one hand, and specifically to America on the other.

If you recall the previous quote from Imam Ahmad about “he is a Qadari” the one who associates with them, would you also be surprised to know that Imam Ahmad also said, “If we did not take the hadeeth of the Qadariyyah, then all of the hadeeth of Basra would be lost”?

So some applications have a certain kind of benefit limited to scholars of hadeeth. Other instructions may have been more general.

The Salaf in general differed over narrating (learning) from someone with innovation. See al-Hadeeth al-Ḍaeef wa Hukm al-Ihtijaaj bihi by sh Abdul-Kareem al-Khudair for a more detailed discussion.

Some were completely against, without exception. These included Malik ibn Anas, Sufyan, and Muhammad ibn Seereen, among others. For them, there was an assumption that people of innovation might lie about the faith, even if they were righteous. Or even if not, they rejected their hadeeth as a punishment to them.

Others, including Imam al-Shafi`ee, Abu Haneefah, Ali ibn Madeeni allowed it if the individual was not known to ever lie, even if they possessed innovation and openly called to that innovation. Quite famously, many compilers took the narrations of the khawārij because the khawārij viewed lying as disbelief. Imam al-Bukhari (rh) is also known to have narrated some hadeeth about the virtues of Ali from those who called to some mild or moderate degrees of tashayyu` Shi’ism.

Other permitters had the condition that the possessor of innovation, in addition to being truthful, was not one who openly called to their innovation – rather, it was simply something they believed but they were not a head of innovation. This included Abdullah ibn Mubaarak, Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi, al-Bukhari in general, among others.

Al-Haafiz ibn Hajr in his Hadiy al-Sari intro to his Fath al-Bari counted sixty-nine narrators in Saheeh al-Bukhari linked to innovation.

And then there were some who compiled narrations uncritically. Some of them would say “eat the meat and spit out the bones.”

But the point I mentioned about solidification is not to be discounted. As there were narrators whom Imam Ahmad did not narrate from them while they were alive, but after they passed away, he would narrate from their students. So he did not give them the satisfaction of having Ahmad as a direct student and their end was still unknown. Part of this was of course a punishment to those narrators, in hopes they would repent, and that their students would not increase greatly or be fooled.

The point being, narrating and learning deen from a possessor of innovation, which implies some form of validation, while not preferred, and was based on need, there is an acknowledgment that nuance exists. And it was not always based on need. As in many cases, those narrations were showcased even though others existed from people who were not accused.

That’s with hadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ, where the compiler presents to the Muslim world that which they heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from the Prophet ﷺ.

Obviously, when it comes to other topics, they could be more dangerous, depending. Will get into that later.

Who is really “off” the manhaj?

One of the small booklets I was happy to find and purchase when I still lived in Medinah was written by brother Ahmad Muhammad al-Saadiq al-Najjaar, with words of praise from Saalih al-Suhaimi (rh) and Sulaiman al-Ruhaili (hA) with the title:

تبصير الخلف بضابط الأصول التي من خالفها خرج من منهج السلف

Enlightening the Successors with the Criterion of the Principles which whoever Defies them has left the Methodology of the Predecessors

It is a short booklet, no more than 50 small pages, mostly quotes from the Salaf and ibn Taymiyyah, and occasional contemporary quotes.

As for the principles, they are the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the pious predecessors.

Ibn Taymiyyah said (majmoo` al-fatawa 3/346):

“فمن قال بالكتاب والسنة والإجماع فهو من أهل السنة والجماعة“

“So whoever speaks by the Book and the Sunnah and consensus, then they are from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah.”

And,

“من خالف الكتاب المستبين، والسنة المستفيضة، أو ما أجمع عليه سلف الأمّة خِلافاً لا يُعذَر فيه، فهذا يُعامَل بما يعامل به أهل البدع” – مجموع الفتاوى 24 / 172

“Whoever goes against the clear Book and the supported Sunnah or what the predecessors of the Ummah united upon, in a way there is no excusing them, then they are dealt with in the ways that the people of innovation are dealt with.”

Consider the excuse. When the Prophet ﷺ says “follow the greatest masses” and the “jamaa`ah” and anyone can clearly see that for much of the past millennium, the bulk of scholarly output appears to be from the people of kalaam, it is easy to be deceived by this and to follow them, believing that to be the pure truth that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ came with. Shunning such groups and individuals may in fact – as circumstances dictate – do more harm than good to Salafis and their dawah.

The author al-Najjaar also wrote:

وأمّا من حيثُ التعيين، والحكم على الأفراد، فإن في المسألة تفصيلاً، إذ ليس كل من وقع في البدعة وقعت البدعة عليه. وذلك أن الرجل إذا كان موالياً للسلف، ومصدر الاستدلال عنده موافقا لما عليه السلف، ووقع مع ذلك في شيء مما يخالف أصول السلف خطأً لم يوالِ ويُعادِ عليه، فإنه لا يخرج عن حد السلف بذلك الخطأ، ولا يكون مبتدعاً، وإنما يقال: وافق أهل البدع في كذا وكذا، ليتبين ضعف قوله، ولا يقال: هو مثلهم، ولا في حكمهم.

As for specific individuals, and judging them, then there is some nuance. Not everyone who fell into innovation can be deemed an innovator. Because if a person is allied with the Salaf, and his source of derivation is in agreement with the Salaf, and he has fallen, despite that, in what goes against the foundations of the Salaf mistakenly, without making allegiance and enmity upon it, then they have not left the way of the Salaf by that mistake. And they are not an innovator. But instead it is said: they agreed with the people of innovation in this and that, so that the weakness of their statement is understood. But it is not said that they are like them or with their same ruling.

Ibn Taymiyyah said (Majmū` al-Fatāwa 3/349):

ومثل هؤلاء إذا لم يجعلوا ما ابتدعوه قولاً يفارقون به جماعة المسلمين يوالون عليه ويعادون، كان من نوع الخطأ، والله يغفر للمؤمنين خطأهم في مثل ذلك.

… And like these, if they do not turn what they innovated into a statement by which they depart from the jamaa`ah of the Muslims, allying upon it and disassociating, then it is from the genus of mistakes, and Allah forgives the believers their mistakes in matters like that.

ولهذا وقع في مثل هذا كثير من سلف الأمة وأئمتهم: لهم مقالات قالوها باجتهاد، وهي تخالف ما ثبت في الكتاب والسنة، بخلاف من والى مُوافِقَه وعادى مُخالِفَه وفرّق بين جماعة المسلمين، وكفّر وفسّق مخالفه دون موافقه في مسائل الآراء والاجتهادات، واستحلّ قتال مخالفه دون موافقه فهؤلاء من أهل التفرق والاختلافات.”

And to this, many of the predecessors of this Ummah and their Imams fell into. They have statements they made with ijtihad, yet they go against what has been confirmed in the Book and the Sunnah. [But they are] not the same as the one who allies with the one who agrees and makes enmity with the one who disagrees and splits the jamaa`ah of the Muslims, anathematizing and excommunicating his interlocutor, not the one who agrees with him, in issues of theory and ijtihad, and deem permissible the fighting of their detractor, not the one in agreement; then those are from the people of division and differing.”

Khallaal wrote in al-Sunnah:

“إخراج الناس من السنة شديد” – السنة للخلال

“Removing people from the Sunnah is severe.”

Ibn Taymiyyah as an example of a minority Athari amid a diverse metropolitan Islam

Ibn Taymiyyah’s main activities took place just a hundred years after Salah al-Din retook Jerusalem and greatly spread Asharism. And so a great many of iT’s teachers were Ash`ari. He was born just a few short years after the Mongols sacked Baghdad. It was also at this time that Islam had just become a majority, eclipsing Christians and others, in Egypt and Levant. Most of his life was in Damascus, with a few years in Egypt.

He is most famous for his extensive writings refuting different Ashari beliefs and methodologies and statements, while advocating the methodology of the Salaf. He is also greatly revered as a jurist of the Hanbali madhab, despite a great number of choices taken from beyond them.

His inspiration to become acquainted with the Salaf came after questioning his teachers and searching for the history ta’weel and the mutashaabih in the books of the predecessors and tafseer of the Quran. In so doing, he developed a great understanding of their general positions, and he became revered as being one who could extrapolate the ways of the Salaf, in general and specific. His diverse background and extreme intelligence and memory made him suitable and equipped to masterfully critique his opponents.

Despite the tremendous amount of writing ibn Taymiyyah spent refuting the Asha`irah, he also wrote:

وإن كان في كلامهم من الأدلة الصحيحة، وموافقة السنة ما لا يوجد في كلام عامة الطوائف، فإنهم أقرب طوائف أهل الكلام إلى السنة والجماعة، والحديث، وهم يعدون من أهل السنة والجماعة عند النظر إلى مثل المعتزلة، والرافضة وغيرهم، بل هم أهل السنة والجماعة في البلاد التي يكون أهل البدع فيها هم المعتزلة، والرافضة ونحوهم.

… And there is in their speech from valid evidences, and agreement with the Sunnah that is not in the speech of the rest of the sects. And they are the closest of the sects of kalaam to Ahl-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah and hadeeth. And they are considered Ahl Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah when considering the likes of the Mu`tazilah and Rafidah and other than them. Rather, they are Ahl-Sunnah wal-Jama`ah in lands where people of innovation are the Mu`tazilah and Raafidah.

There are some similar quotes like this.

Now I ask you, what about lands where the Muslims are just two percent of the entire population? And when those two percent are mostly not practicing, entirely liberal or cultural?  What would ibn Taymiyyah say then?

Ibn Taymiyyah also said, regarding shunning:

(فالمقصود بهذا أن يهجر المسلمُ السيئات ويهجر قرناء السوء الذين تضر صحبتهم إلا لحاجة أو مصلحة راجحة)

The goal with this that the Muslim should abandon evil deeds and abandon evil companions whose accompaniment is harmful except for a need OR greater benefit.

These needs and greater benefits, can be described in detail and qualified, but in the end, it is up to community leaders, imams and scholars of the Sunnah to make decisions and choices they see most beneficial for their community. The Sunnah shrinks and grows in strength from time to time in different places, based on a multitude of factors.

The example of ibn Taymiyyah, to mix with people of kalaam, and those of different opinions in issues of ijtihad while simultaneously penning refutations of their opinions and traditions that he believed went against the Sunnah. He did not socially isolate himself. It also seems like some of his longer more detailed refutations were shared among a limited audience. Not the general masses. That is evident because of how much others refuted him whenever he wrote summarized creedal works like the Wasitiyyah and Hamawiyyah or his opinion regarding triple-talaaq. If he was in isolation, the rest of the scholars of kalam probably would not have paid any attention to him.

In general, ibn Taymiyyah and those with him, al-Dhahabi, ibn Katheer, al-Mizzi, ibn Muflih and even ibnul-Qayyim recognized the necessity of interacting with others, collaborating with them and evoking a more holistic view of the Ummah. The majority of those around them were Muslims. How do you think ibn Taymiyyah or ibnul-Qayyim would be if they were in a city with only one masjid, with some influence of kalaam, Sufism or Ikhwan? Or even if that city had multiple masajid, but the Muslims were still only 5% of the general population, and the Athari were few in numbers and resources?

Ibn Taymiyyah evokes the Salaf when refuting others. But when he speaks of the present day Ummah, you can sense that he had a holistic mindset, even though his creedal ideas were minority.

Was ibn Taymiyah an anomaly? What contemporaries say…

A quote presented in a book gathering quotes from ulema, mostly dispraising the evils of the Ikhwani principle, but an important quote that may undermine a lot of what is presumed and practiced by western Salafis:

علامة الشام المحدث محمد ناصر الدين الألباني قال حفظه الله: منتقداً قائلي هذه (القاعدة!) : هم أول من يخالف هذه الفقرة، ونحن لا نشك بأن شطراً من هذه الكلمة صواب، وهو (نتعاون على ما اتفقنا عليه). الجملة الأولى هي طبعاً مقتبسة من قوله تعالى: {وتعاونوا على البر والتقوى}. أما الجملة الأخرى: (يعذر بعضنا بعضاً)؛ لا بد من تقييدها. متى؟ حينما نتناصح، ونقول لمن أخطأ: أخطأت، والدليل كذا وكذا، فإذا رأيناه ما اقتنع، ورأيناه مخلصاً، فندعه وشأنه، فنتعاون معه فيما اتفقنا عليه. أما إذا رأيناه عاند واستكبر وولى مدبراً، فحينئذ؛ لا تصح هذه العبارة ولا يعذر بعضنا بعضاً فيما اختلفنا فيه. (مجلة الفرقان الكويتيه عدد77 ص 22)

The great scholar, muhaddith of Levant, Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (hA) said, while critiquing the claimants of this principle: they are the first who go against this passage. And we do not doubt that a half of this word is correct, and that is “we work together with what we agree upon”, the first statement and it is of course derived from Allah’s words “And help each other upon righteousness and piety”. As for the other statement “we excuse one another”, then it must be qualified. When? When we advise one another. We say to the one who made an error, “you are mistaken, and the evidence is this and that” and if we see that he is not convinced, but we see him as sincere, then we leave him alone, and we work with him in what we agree upon. But if he is stubborn, arrogant and turns away, then this principle does not apply and we do not excuse each other in what we differ over.”

So the shaykh saw the validity of working with people that you disagree with. It is assumed here that he is talking about issues more egregious than where to put your hands after you stand up from rukoo`.

Others also know that Shaykh al-Albani has assumed the manhaj of Hasan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) in many matters.

Shaykh al-Albani, when asked about avoiding Muslims, even while in the Muslim world, he said that this is a time of weakness, and not a time of avoiding one another, and that avoiding Muslims for their mistakes was legislated in the past but invalid today. He emphasizes not to abandon any Muslims despite their deviances whether those deviations are ideological or theological or otherwise. Click that link and listen if you don’t believe me (it’s in Arabic).

Shaykh al-Albani (rh) was once called the “ibn Taymiyyah of our times”. He was a muhaddith, and many scholars of hadeeth criticized his methods but a great many of those critics often later returned and recognized the correctness of many of his rulings, or the prints he used. Like ibn Taymiyyah, he had a diverse background and many travels, meeting Muslims of many backgrounds. This no doubt gave him a much greater view of the world, as opposed to a scholar who hardly ever left the Hijaz, a land of none but Muslims where Salafiyyah is in power. Sh al-Albani was known for debating face-to-face with those he differed with and being very outspoken with what he believed.

And when referring to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Shaykh considers them to be among Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah and upon the way of the Pious Predecessors “even if they differ with us”. He confirms that what he believes is that they are within the firqatun-naajiyah, and says rahimahullah for Hasan al-Banna (rh). Shaykh al-Albani was one of the first to really speak about “manhaj” and to distinguish between the manhaj of Salafiyyah as opposed to the manhaj of the Ikhwan (MB). The differences being in pedagogy, priorities, and collaboration. The Salafi way stresses calling the common Muslims to greater faith literacy, especially with aqeedah and tawheed, but the MB method stresses unity, service, general education, unity, material and political strength. I prefer to believe that the truth is stressing all things, at all times.

And listen to the beautiful sensical answer he gave when confronted with a quote from Sayed Qutb about the “nature of the Quran”. Shaykh Naasir essentially said that Qutb (after saying rahimahullah for him) was not a scholar, and had little knowledge of the aqeedah of the Salaf. Therefore, it is not beneficial to think too deeply or try to extract too much from his rhetorical literary style. Rather, the reader should recall and reaffirm the basic creed with regard to the Quran. Al-Albani did not give a stern and severe warning against reading the book.

One of the beautiful statements that one of my teachers, Sh Ibrahim al-Ruḥaili occasionally quoted from al-Albani is:

نحن دعاة ولسنا قضاة

We are duaat (calling, inviting) and not qudaat (judging, sentencing)

One thing that I notice when reading books and articles from our Salafi brothers is that when they gather a string of quotes together about one of these issues, and you look more critically at the quotes, you’ll notice that the words of ibn Taymiyyah and al-Albani, amid the rest, are often a bit more qualified and seemingly relevant. It is almost as if, in many cases, their words put the others in context, holding them down, whereas one may think them general and all encompassing.

But even apart from al-Albani, I have noticed the same mindset from ibn al-Uthaymeen and ibn Baaz. From the book al-Aqalliyaat al-Muslimah (Muslim Minorities), a compilation of questions and answers from those two scholars we see the following:

My translation: Q: From what is observed is that the majority of Islamic minorities throughout the world are concerned about calling to unite the Muslims and gathering them together while neglecting to foster their pure sound Islamic aqeedah. So what is your comment on that methodology?

A: in any case, calling to gather the Muslims and unite their word, this is a good pure call, and important, and the need for it is greatly felt. However, if it is accompanied with understanding of the deen and teaching to the right aqeedah, then that would be more complete and it is the greater obligation, because uniting them without the correct aqeedah does not suffice towards what is sought. But it benefits them greatly. So it is important that the dawah encompasses unity and clinging to the rope of Allah and holding firm to His deen and giving attention to the correct aqeedah that the Messenger ﷺ and his noble companions lived so that the dawah be encompassing and complete. [end of the answer].

It is important and necessary to include the call to the correct aqeedah. But if those involved see that, for example, teaching aqeedah – at least with the ways that they know how to teach it – will cause people to run away from the masjid and the good projects that could come out of unity, then it may be best to focus on what is agreeable. After all, as it is said…

حدّثوا الناس بما يعرفون أتريدون أن يكذَّب اللهُ ورسولُه

Speak to the people by what they are accustomed to. Do you wish that Allah and His Messenger ﷺ be belied?

And there is a time for every thing. Collaborate with different masajid and imams in other issues. Obviously, not inviting an imam known for takfir to talk about “the essence of iman“. But for a janazah workshop, that is more plausible, if he is mature and there are great benefits from the collaboration. Doing such activities often brings individuals from those masajid to masajid more strictly upon Sunnah.

Regarding the differences in Sifaat, Iman and Qadr…

The Ashairah (primarily Maliki and Shafii) and Maturidiyah (primarily Hanafi) mostly agree on issues of sifaat. They disagree on issues of iman (Ashairah much closer to “Ahlus-Sunnah”) and qadr (Maturidiyah much closer to “Ahlus-Sunnah”). As for the Hanabilah, some were mufawwiḍah in attributes (leaving the meaning to Allah), and some were muthbitah (confirming the meaning, like ibn Taymiyyah), and some exaggerated in confirming, adding to it what the scriptures did not say (like saying that Allah sits on the throne – no authentic scripture says that).

I put “Ahlus-Sunnah” in quotations because if you read any of the other books – the books of the Ashairah or Maturidiyah, then you will see how they, over and over, refer to their own selves as Ahlus-Sunnah. Saying “Ahlus-Sunnah” is almost meaningless, if you intend to exclude anyone who follows one of the four fiqh schools, regardless of their aqeedah. The way that these groups used it was to exclude the Mu`tazilah and the “mujassimah mushabbihah hashawiyah”.

A strong case may be made that the founders of all four fiqh madhabs were each upon the same aqeedah in attributes and qadr, with only Abu Haneefah differing in iman. Although there are reports he retracted near the end of his life when learning different narrations. Nonetheless, Abu Haneefah and his teacher Hammaad ibn Abi Sulaiman are generally considered from the “murji’ah lite” or murji’ah al-fuqaha.

What unites these four theological schools (Ashairah, Maturidiyah, Mufawwiḍah, and Muthbitah) are their identical approaches to Usul al-fiqh, not rejecting any of the Sunnah due to desires. They all respect the same imams of the past. There were people of hadeeth that went each of those ways. Their worship and values are the same. It is only in the deep intellectual matters and tafseer of certain passages where the differences are most pronounced. And those differences may cascade throughout other sciences in subtle ways only recognized by the astute and critical, familiar with history and evolution of words and phrases. They agree the resurrection is spirit and body, the Horn blowing, Scales, and Siraat are true, and that Hell and Paradise are all real. The mahdi, dajjaal, and the descent of `Isa (as) are real. They have a general agreement to the aqeedah of Imam al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321).

In outer appearance, were members of all four aforementioned groups  gathered from different places and put together, not knowing each other’s theological background, not talking about attributes or qadr—which the Salaf did not delve into anyways—but only about applicable visible practice, none of their differences of belief would affect their outward practice, whether in matters of worship, transactions and family law, politics or relationships, conduct or morality or spirituality. They all revere the companions of the Prophet ﷺ without, fundamentally, making any exceptions.

All of this is in contrast to the classical Mu`tazilah who have different usool, reject narrations due to contradiction alone, seek to forcibly remove the ruler and coerce the rest to their beliefs. Anyone who adopted the beliefs of the Mu`tazilah engage in coercion or forced conversion, as did the Twelvers of Ismail Shah, and the Almohad Dynasty of northwest Africa.

For these reasons, many scholars have said that Ahlus-Sunnah have three schools of Aqeedah: Ashairah, Maturidiyah and Hanabilah. One may disagree with that, and I personally find it very hard to accept ilm al-kalaam and what they believe as waajib upon Allah as being from Ahlus-Sunnah. The degree of innovations they introduced into the study of aqeedah with scant basis – far different from Ali bin Abi Taalib starting the basis of nahw, or al-Shafi`ee with Usul al-Fiqh, and likewise with other disciplines. But nonetheless, because of the huge amount of similarities between Kalaamists and Athari with Islam as a whole, I believe, especially here in America, that these differences must be tolerated. And indeed, it is hard to think of “al-sawaad al-a`zam” and exclude the kalamists. That would almost be impossible.

As often as many from both sides, even a day after calling towards unity, especially from Kalam teachers and then Salafi duāt, hurl slurs towards each other and tajheel of one another. However if you ask the common Muslim their thoughts, they would rather both sides shut up. And this is partially why I feel these arguments are mostly academic and theoretical, and they become a bit too heated based on lawazim which imply takfīr, from both sides. The common Muslims may actually see something that scholars do not.

Ibn Taymiyyah is known to have said that if he were to say what they say, he would be a kafir for doing so, because he [believes he] knows. But for them, they are ignorant to that [fact], following very deeply held complex interpretations,^[2]A bit like how astronomers had complex mathematical formulas for a thousand years to accommodate Ptolemy’s geocentric universe. and so labeling them would only confuse them into responding “you are hereticating and anathematizing Muslims!” And so “establishing the hujjah” and making a label real is easier said than done. As they no doubt did not have any preventatives but were very intelligent, even if their reading was more of grammar and logic, fiqh or even prophetic hadeeth than the narrations of the Salaf.

It is quite ironic, hypocritical, and a double standard of Salafis, to make excuses for ibn Hazm, ibn Hajr and al-Nawawi, for their deviances, yet not give the same grace for others. Why not? Likely because of their affiliation to hadeeth. Yet ibn Hajr was quite clear about ibn Taymiyyah, even telling the tale of his supposed repentance that was unknown to any of his students and chroniclers.

I personally have a tolerable respect, generally, for the ulema of kalam aqeedah schools, and their apparently good intentions. I view their schools like I view monasticism:

{… وَرَهْبَانِيَّةً ابْتَدَعُوهَا مَا كَتَبْنَاهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ فَمَا رَعَوْهَا حَقَّ رِعَايَتِهَا فَآتَيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْهُمْ أَجْرَهُمْ وَكَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ} سورة الحديد

“But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them, but (they sought it) only to please Allah therewith, but that they did not observe it with the right observance. So We gave those among them who believed, their reward, but many of them are defiant.” [57:27]

Kalaam is definitely an innovation that people have adopted and use to prove Allah’s existence, declare His perfection and dissimilarity, and create irrefutable arguments for the basic claims of the Shariah. But they did not observe it rightly, occasionally forcing themselves to go against the apparent meanings of the scriptures and ignorantly casting aside the understanding of the Salaf. But I expect Allah will indeed reward the sincere among them, which I hope are the vast majority.

And consider that ayah again, as it was actually referring to a matter of outward practice and discipline, like the faqirs and lodges, how most Sufis differ from ahl-hadeeth.

Some question the consistency of a stance that embraces the Ashairah and Maturidiyah but excludes the Mu`tazilah. It may seem, from the point of view of Salafis today that Ashairah and Maturidiyah could actually be closer to the Mu`tazilah than to the Salafiyyah. They are, in Salafi view mu`aṭṭilah-lite. And in fact, nearly all of the Asha`irah completely hereticate Salafis, calling them anthropomorphist, some even making takfeer, and do not consider them from Ahlus-Sunnah.

And I agree, it does appear inconsistent. Because it can change according to surroundings. If one is a single Salafi, with a dozen twelvers, among thousands of Hindus for example, then the goalposts of collaboration could change again.

It also makes me consider how Allah gave certain rulings and what seemed to be a “special class” among the disbelievers for People of the Book. The circle of “believers” does not extend to cover them wherever pagans are present, but their alliance should be sought first if the Muslims are not strong enough to hold their own, and all other factors being equal.

But from the ulema of the past are a few who make note of general association between the Ashairah and Hanabilah. For example, Ash`ari historian of Damascus ibn Asakir (d. 571) mentions in his Manaqib:

(مازالت الحنابلة والأشاعرة في قديم الدهر متفقين غير متفرقين، حتى حدثت فتنة ابن القشيري..)

The Hanabilah and Ashairah were always in agreement, undivided, until the tribulation of ibn al-Qushairi…

No doubt, the Ashairah changed over the centuries, and some of the early ones did not interpret Allah’s speech or Allah’s elevation, which were two principles that many of the Salaf said were defining attributes of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah.

Ash`ari Shafie scholar Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdadi (d. 429) wrote in his al-Farq bayna al-Firaq:

(فأما الفرقة الثالثة والسبعون: فهي أهل السنة والجماعة، من فريقي الرأي والحديث، دون من يشتري لهو الحديث، وفقهاء هذين الفريقين وقراؤهم ومحدثوهم، ومتكلموا أهل الحديث فيهم، كلهم متفقون على مقالة واحدة في توحيد الصانع وصفاته وعدله وحكمته، وفي أسمائه وصفاته، وفي أبوب النبوة والإمامة، وفي أحكام العقبى، وفي سائر أصول الدين.

And as for the 73^rd group, then they are Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah, from the two groups: of qiyas and hadeeth, not those who purchase false hadeeth; ^[3]this statement of his, I don’t know what he intended by it, but he references an ayah, and I’m not sure if this word is meant as tongue in cheek or if he really intends to exclude some … Continue reading

And the jurists of these two groups, their reciters, and their muhaddiths, and the rhetoricians of the people of hadeeth among them, all of them are in agreement upon one statement in oneness of the Creator, His attributes, His justice, and His wisdom, and in His Names and Attributes, and in the subjects of prophethood and caliphate, and in the rulings of the Hereafter, and in the rest of the foundations of the religion.

وإنما يختلفون في الحلال والحرام من فروع الأحكام، وليس بينهم فيما اختلفوا فيه منها تضليل ولا تفسيق.  وهم الفرقة الناجية، ويجمعها الإقرار بتوحيد الصانع وقدمه، وقدم صفاته الأزلية، وإجازة رؤيته من غير تشبيه ولا تعطيل.    مع الإقرار بكتب الله ورسله، وبتأييد شريعة الإسلام وإباحة ما أباحه القرآن، وتحريم ما حرمه القرآن، مع قبول ما صح من سنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، واعتقاد الحشر والنشر، وسؤال الملكين في القبر، والإقرار بالحوض والميزان.

Their only differences are in halal and haram from the branches of rulings, and there is not, in what they differed in, any claims of misguidance or sinfulness. And they are the Saved Sect. They are gathered by acknowledgement of the oneness of the Creator and His pre-eternity, and the pre-eternity of His eternal attributes, and permitting His sight without any anthropomorphism nor nullification; along with acknowledging the Books of Allah and His Messengers, and with aiding the Sharia of Islam and permitting what the Quran permitted, and forbidding what the Quran forbade, while accepting what is authentic from the Sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ, and believing in the Gathering and Resurrection, and the questioning of the two angels in the grave, and acknowledging the Pool and the Scale.

فمن قال بهذه الجهة التي ذكرناها، ولم يخلط إيمانه بها بشيء من بدع الخوارج والروافض والقدرية، وسائر أهل الأهواء، فهو من جملة الفرقة الناجية – إن ختم الله له بها -، ودخل في هذه الجملة: جمهور الأمة وسوادها الأعظم من أصحاب مالك، والشافعي، وأبي حنيفة، والأوزاعي، والثوري، وأهل الظاهر.

So whoever speaks with this direction that we’ve mentioned, and has not mixed their faith with anything of the innovations of the khawarij or rafidah or qadariyah, or other groups of the people of desires, then they are from the Saved Sect, if Allah sealed [their life for them] with it, and they have entered into this statement: the majority of the Ummah, and its greatest crowd from the companions of Maalik, al-Shaafi`ee, and Abu Haneefah, al-Awza`ee, al-Thawry and ahl-Thaahir.

But perhaps most famous, clearest, and notable, the latter-day Hanbali scholar, al-Safārīnīyah (d. 1188 ah) wrote in his creed:

(أهل السنة والجماعة ثلاث فرق: الأثرية وإمامهم الإمام أحمد بن حنبل والأشعرية، وإمامهم الإمام أبو الحسن الأشعري  رحمه الله ، والماتريدية وإمامهم الإمام أبو منصور الماتريدي .. ) .

“Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah are three groups: the Scripturalists, and their leader is Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal; the Asha`irah, and their leader is Imam Abul-Hasan al-Ash`ari (rh), and the Maturidiyah, and their Imam ibn Abu Mansur al-Maturidi.”

Some scholars, it would seem, consider the differences between the four aqeedah ideologies as being akin to the differences between the jumhūr and Hanafis [and Zaahiris or Ahl-Hadeeth?] in Usool al-Fiqh. I can respect that.

Ibn Taymiyyah likewise wrote (Majmoo` al-Fatawa 4/15-6):

وكذلك رأيت في فتاوى الفقيه أبي محمد فتوى طويلة، فيها أشياء حسنة قد سئل فيها عن أشياء متعددة، قال فيها: …، ثم قال: ومن ذلك قوله: أما لعن العلماء لأئمة الأشاعرة، فمن لعنهم عُزِّر، وعادت اللعنة عليه، فمن لعن من ليس أهلاً للعنة، وقعت اللعنة عليه، والعلماء أنصار فروع الدين، والأشعرية أنصار أصول الدين

Similarly to that, I saw in the fatāwa of the jurist Abu Muhammad a long fatwa, it contained good things. He was asked in it about a number of things. He said therein: …., and from that his statement: as for cursing the scholars from the leaders of the Ashairah, then whoever curses them is to be punished, and the curse returns upon him, and whoever curses anyone not deserving a curse, then the curse falls upon them. And the scholars are the defenders of the branches of the deen, and the Ash`ariyah are defenders of the foundations of the deen.

Others give a more just qualified statement, as Abdul-Azeez ibn Baaz did in his Tanbeehaat Haammah fi ma Katabahu al-Ṣābūnī:

…لا مانع أن يقال: إن الأشاعرة ليسوا من أهل السنة في باب الأسماء والصفات، وإن كانوا منهم في الأبواب الأخرى، حتى يعلم الناظر…

There is nothing to stop from qualifying “the Ashairah are not from Ahl-Sunnah in the matter of Names and Attributes, even if they are of them in the other subjects,” so that the onlooker may know…

Regarding collaboration in America

We seek expert advice all the time on issues from disbelievers and from Muslims. If a Muslim with deviant ideas happens to be a physician, can we still get medical advice from him or her? What about learning grammar from them? Or fiqh?

The fear is that it will be a gateway to learning blameworthy kalaam or extreme taṣawwuf from that individual, for example. And that is no doubt a genuine fear. So leaders and scholars have to estimate issues of learning and collaboration with possessors of innovation justly, and think of the greater benefits and harms. Especially when benefits are almost certain, and harms are highly speculative, and the people of Sunnah are not forced into silence about their beliefs.

Learning from possessors of some innovation, in a land where knowledge is scarce, may in fact be a necessity when scholars of Sunnah are rare, or overloaded, or they do not help the youth alleviate doubts for example. Even in the online Islamic colleges, classes are taught by recorded lessons. Access to scholars is difficult.

In the minds of most common Muslims, the vast majority couldn’t care less about debates regarding attributes. And if you try to teach them, they will leave. Part of me thinks they are right. They would rather learn the 99 Names of Allah. The academic in me wants to delve into some deep matters, but when I take a step back, I am reminded of overall relevance in my mission as an imam.

Salafis may refuse to learn hifz of the Quran and tajweed for example because the Quran teacher is not Salafi. They may quote Ayub al-Sakhtiani (d. 131 ah) saying to a person of innovation “do not even quote me half an ayah!”. But ultimately, this will lead to a spiritually unfulfilled cult that keeps shrinking.

And among kalaamists, there are some who recognize the harm teaching kalam can have upon general audiences, even though they know that leaving lay Muslims to believe in scripture as it comes to them, leads to, what they believe, is anthropomorphism.

So again, imams and leaders must estimate and distinguish between collaborating with other preachers depending on their knowledge and talents, the dangers of their deviations and whether or not they actively call to those deviations, and the strength of their call to those deviations. Some keep their ideologies to themselves because they don’t want the drama. Many Salafis in diverse communities are the same way.^[4]Personally, I don’t think that is a problem. After all, Sh MiAW’s Kitab al-Tawheed was little more than quoting āyāt and aḥādīth. Ibn Taymiyyah’s Wasitiyyah is similar. All a Salafi … Continue reading Calling them out on it might in fact provoke them to defend it. This is one of the things where some Salafis in fact poke the hornets’ nest when the hornets were keeping to themselves.

​Collaboration has become a loaded word in modern times, despite its obvious limited application and intention.

In the age of social media and internet, someone’s collaboration with another, indeed, being spontaneously put at the same table as someone else (sorry Mufti Menk), can instantly go global. Sometimes it’s not even the final draft of a flyer that leaks, goes viral and triggers articles exposing only the bad suspicions, love of downfall and jealousy that people have towards their scholars.

Like a picture of an imam with a politician, even a Muslim one. Regardless of the context. Anyone trying to make a greater change knows there is little recourse but to speak with politicians from time to time, no matter what those politicians may advocate on issues apart from the one at hand. But it can lead to opening doors to many community benefits. Those who know, know.

Someone forwarded an article to me recently about a collaboration highlighting the word “peace” a dozen times and the usual chain connections. Okayyyyy. Scandal! Wow! Peace! Cringe! I remember a shaykh telling us one of the lessons of Hudaibiyah was how vastly Islam spread during the time of peace. Beforehand the Prophet had 1400 to travel with, but not even two years later 10,000 warriors.

All of this confirms that most online engagements and tabloid style articles are a veritable cesspool.

So an imam gets blacklisted and labeled. Then the masajid and imams who collaborate with him are labeled and given the same ruling. And so on and so forth, when in reality, it should not have even included the first imam, but chalked up to his limited ijtihad. If he releases a statement explaining his perspective, then great. But if not, can we not have good suspicion? He could be right or wrong. Different perspectives will appreciate the possibilities. Consider Abu Bakr and Umar when debating over the prisoners of Badr.

It is rare to see mature perspectives from people who are not imams or scholars. As for people who literally make a living by creating “sky is falling” drama, then you do not need that kind of negativity and division. Think about that. Their rental (or alimony) payments and lifestyle are dependent on the scandals they create.

I have to thank one of my original mentors in Islam. Whenever I asked him about anything anyone else had done that seemed dubious, or even sinful, he would say “what I know about Islam is this and that…. And he will be asked by Allah about it on yawmul-qiyaamah.” He would not make judgments or pass orders but would refer to the ultimate Judgment we are all subject to.

This sense of relegating to Allah is mostly gone from the online scene which would rather tear down than build up–unless it’s building up personal brand.

Commanding good and forbidding evil are important. But the first pillar of that is recognizing whether or not the thing being exposed or tarnished is in fact a vice and not an issue of ijtihad. Even Iblees was asked why he didn’t prostrate.

Spreading these collaborations as if they were scandalous drunken orgies, or as if one was giving the keys to Palestinian homes to their enemies muddies the waters and misleads the common Muslim to believe these things are sinful misguidance, while it could even be that the one who is mistaken, trying their best, gets one reward. Meanwhile, citing Hudaibiyah is always dismissed as if the event never happened. Cognitive dissonance is quite the companion to those who seek to monopolize the truth.

Of course, collaboration can be dangerous and lead to disastrous consequences. But it can also lead to positives, most of which we never even know about because it doesn’t garner any popularity and because it forces critics to admit they were wrong, which of course they rarely do. And definitely not with the same fanfare as the first time around.

Just one example, in defense of my masjid the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh (ICP). On Saturday October 27th, 2018, a mile away from the ICP, a gunman opened fire at a nearby synagogue, killing 11 attendees. The Islamic Center of Pittsburgh started a Go Fund Me, with an initial goal of $25,000 to pay for the burial of the victims. Mostly Muslims from around the country donated until eventually ~$200,000 was raised.

In Pittsburgh, many Muslims wrongfully claim the ICP gave a quarter million of the masjid’s own money to this cause. They say the ICP gave this money to the Jews while forcing poor Muslims to go through bureaucratic gauntlet to get even small assistance from the masjid.

But the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh does in fact assist with burying Muslims unable to pay for their Islamic burial from its own resources. No gofundme involved.

On top of that, the Jews of Pittsburgh actually raised over half a million dollars for the families of the New Zealand masjid shootings that happened less than 6 months later.

No one ever mentions that. Even my own masjid staff and admin are largely unaware of this. I first learned of it when an outreach coordinator from a Jewish org mentioned it in passing. Unbelievable.

We always remember the skewed and incriminating and forget the redeeming. Sometimes even about our own selves. Alhamdulillah Allah is more merciful.

Should I make duaa against those who rush to judgment? All I can say is Allah will ask them about what they say.

﴿سَتُكْتَبُ شَهَادَتُهُمْ وَيُسْأَلُونَ﴾

“Their claims will be recorded and they will b​​e questioned.” [43: 19]

Conclusion…

After your Salafi manhaj card no longer works at the websites or masajid, what do you take with you?

The love of knowledge and respect for its people. The love of Islam and the respect for its people.

My goal in all of this is to say the following:

• You can still be a scripturalist athari confirmer of Allah’s attributes.
• You can still believe it is wrong to revolt against a Muslim ruler, regardless of their sins and oppression, or to even publicly rebuke them or speak badly about them.
• You can build and attend masajid with more conservative policies. I believe it is good to have more conservative places especially for single men like Ahl-Suffah. I remember how difficult it was to go to al-Masjid al-Haraam when I was a single student, because of how the women were in that masjid. But I also believe there need to be more lenient and sensitive masajid for those with traumatic religious experiences to go to and “test the waters” and ease back into Islam when they feel harkened to return.
• But you cannot disrespect those who follow other scholars, especially, more intimately familiar scholars, with regard to ijtihadi issues of politics, leadership and collaboration. Much less those who follow different fiqh opinions whose validity is solidified by a thousand years of scholarship.
• Even with regard to sifaat, the Ummah has become too diverse, great and connected. And different situations, places and times and different personalities and groups call for different strategies where it is not feasible to apply one single thousand-year-old brush to all of them. Especially in most American towns where we do not have the luxury of ignoring one another while maintaining any semblance of communal strength.

هذا والله أعلم. وما كان من صواب فمن الله وما كان من خطأ فمن نفسي الخطاءة والشيطان.

وصلى الله على نبيه محمد وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم تسليماً مزيداً عدد خلقه ورضا نفسه وزنة عرشه ومداد كلماته