The Athari & Salafi Aqeedah in Retrospect

Courtesy of al-Mustaqeem.Tripod.com

A removal of doubts posed by certain partisan groups and the confusion over their speech

Inal hamdulillahi wasalatu wa salamu ala nabiyyina Muhammadan wa ala aalihi wa sahbihi ajmaeen, wa bad

One of the common questions that have appeared in our day as of yet is the following question Is there any distinction between the Athari Creed and what we see described as the Salafi Creed? What is erroneously understood from one who may himself follow an athari aqeedah and then not claim salafi is the usual notion that salafis primarily rely on none other than Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah, his student Ibnul-Qayyim, and Imaam Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhab as primary references. Primarily, one who is athari is by definition someone who attributes himself, in his deen, by following the narrations i.e. athaar. All the narrations all come from the sahaba and the two subsequent generations after them. So being salafi by definition means, according to the salafi understanding as is propounded by the salafi scholars is following the athaar, particularly of the salaf. By definition or by principle, salafi and athari have absolutely no distinction whatsoever. However in terms of reality, there is likewise no difference whatsoever. The only difference that is reported are people who are themselves outside the fold (meaning they openly do not claim to follow) the athari creed and nor do they follow the salafi tariqa (way) as well. This position is primarily followed by most, if not all, who follow the madhaab of ashari and the maturidiyyah of nowadays. The next group who will say they follow the athari creed, but not the salafi creed are in a quandary. This will be explained throughout this short bayaan bi ithnillah.

What must be explained is that reliance on a certain scholar or group of scholars has neither bearing nor any significance whatsoever with demarcating the creed of athari or salafi creed. The only examination between what could come out of the actions of some salafis vs those who claim are not, yet are athari, is merely a preferential matter, and has nothing to do with any significant, or rather minute change between the two creeds in question. Basically, in essence, if someone were to make distinction between the two on the basis of the fact that one group only relies on the afore mentioned scholars and the other does not limit itself to those scholars is in error in two aspects 1. The salafis actually do not perform the act of limiting the source references of aqeedah to only Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibnul-Qayyim, and Ibn Abdul-Wahhab rahmatullahi alaihoom. 2. Such limiting if it is performed, is not an asl regarding our deen, it is at best a mere preferential matter for the persons desire to do so and has nothing to do with any demarcation between salafi and athari Secondly, there is wisdom behind the precedence of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnul-Qayyim on this matter versus other athari ulema. That is because these two were the most just with regard to their clarification and refutations of the aqeedah between the salafi aqeedah and that which opposes it. If one were to rely more on others outside of these two in the following of athari aqeedah, one will notice that these pillars (other athari ulema) are more inclined to the complete annihilation, defamation of their opponents among the ash'aris, usually with their works in actual takfeer and the declaration of apostasy for the asharis. So if these ash'aris are hell bent on salafis taking these two as reference points in aqeedah, then they show a lack of any reasoning for wanting us salafis to refer to those outside of these two. If they are complaining about our quarrel against them which in reality is their quarrel with us in leaving the jama'aah, then what will become of their complaint when we lean to those outside of these two who are more resultant in the blatant takfeer, extermination, extremism, and complete obstruction of their very existence upon this earth? Even the one whom they deem as the Prime Example of what the athari is, Ibnul-Jawzee, his life was in complete dedication to the outright annihilation of Ash'aris period. In fact he was a sword against them and he was amongst the harshest of people against them. This is the reality of our athari past that the complainers wish for us salafis to refer back to as authorities of aqeedah rather than the more calmer, gentler, wiser approach of Imaam Taqi-u-Deen and Ibnul-Qayyim. So the reality of their complaint is completely devoid of any wisdom which is unfortunate, yet common among our ash'ari brethren.

From this point onward I will combine salafi and athari as one because what applies in terms of usool regarding aqeedah and its source references applies to both.

So I, rather all salafis say, that we salafi/atharis understand that the source references of aqeedah is primarily, but no limited to, the following

1. Aqeedatu-Tahaawiyyah which we hold that it is a primary element in the codification of aqeedah as was propounded according to the hanafee madhaab 2. ar-Risaalah Ibn Abi Zayd of which we also hold that it is a primary element in the codification of he aqeedah as was propounded according to the maalikee madhaab 3. Aqeedahtu-Salaf ashabul-Hadeeth which was as well a primary element in the codification of the aqeedah according to the madhaab of the shawaafi 4. Kitaabu-Sunnah, or commonly known as usoolu-sunnah, which was the codification of the aqeedah according to Ahmad Bin Hanbal. To us salafi/atharis, all of these creeds laid down is one in the same as is evidently clear by the texts themselves. The only slight distinction made in any of them is between the tahaawiyyah with the rest only in the matter of emaan merely being limited to tasdeeq and statement. This has been expounded in other works and is easily a known khilaaf between ahlul-hadeeth ulema and that of the maturidi ahnaaf of which has no place in this clarification. So the reality of salafiyyah is that anyone who follows the way laid down by the salafusaalih is in reality sunni. The reason why is because our Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal said the Sunnah with us is what the companions were upon This immense statement entails some fundamental realities. Some of them are the fact that Ahmad 1. did not begin with the Quraan 2. did not begin with the Sunnah of the prophet. Why, because 3. But he started off with saying that this sunnah is the sunnah of what the companions were upon. So to us there is no quraan except upon the way the companions understood it, there is no sunnah of the prophet except the way the companions understood that sunnah. So without being upon the way of the companions i.e. tariqa asalafiyyah, one will not, EVER, attain the quran nor the sunnah in any aspect. That reality is realized by Ahmad who was reported to have something to the effect of the one who traverses upon kalaam and arrives at what is right is in error and the one who is upon sunnah and lands on something wrong is still correct while the obvious application of it was to the ahlul-kalaam, it is understood to be generally anything other than the way of the companions, and since sunnah equals, at least to Ahmad, the way of the companions and anything other than their way cannot ever be as sunnah EVER. This reality would mean by default that the sunnah is limited and only found in the way our companions were found to have done. That means a sunni is what they, the salaf, were. Sunnah does not lie in other than their way, and on that premise anyone who is sunni is by default salafi. Since the athari creed is nothing but the enumeration or the corpus of creedal aspects laid down and implemented by our salaf, then it follows that anyone who follows the athari aqeedah is by default salafi. And the world of Islam is based upon the understanding of the sunnah being, what the companions were upon.

That is why when, contrary to the neo ashari/jahmi rhetoric of today, that when Ibn Taymiyyah went through the mihaan events, and the end result of the two inquisitions made against him by asharis about his alledged tashbeeh and tajseem was that when all the scholars were unanimous that he was not what his detractors fabricated of him, they said you have relayed the aqeedah of none other than Imaam Ahmad [note: this statement is alone is an exoneration of Ibn Taymiyyah even by those who put him in the trial] , and his reply was No, this is rather the aqeedah of all of the salafu-saalih, not just Imaam Ahmad. To further slice more of the reality of his aqeedah being flawlessly saleem like his predecessor Ahmad, He gave his opponents THREE YEARS, 3 years, to come up with anything found in the works of the salaf by which they could find a hint of deviation between what he wrote in his wasitiyyah and what they have found. And of that time, Allah failed their efforts in providing even 1 issue where he left the aqeedah of the salaf upon. Hence, as I said, the athari aqeedah is nothing but the enumeration or the corpus of the creedal aspects laid down and implemented by our salaf. Ahmad is, will always be, and was always held as the criterion and a hujjah in and of himself in measuring a persons adherence to sunnah or bida.

It is based upon this reality that it is most applicable to narrate what Imaam al-Barbaharee stated first when he said Know that Islam is the Sunnah and the Sunnah is Islam, one cannot be established without the other There can be no sunnah devoid of salafiyyah. The analogy of making distinction between the two is saying that there is a difference between Islam and Islam. It does not logically make any sense to anyone who understands what the reality of the sunnah is.

The Just Measure with regard the Source texts We, salaf/atharis hold that these texts are placed under applicable issues. While The Aqeedah of at-Tahawi we hold to be none other than a primer and the pillar of all later creeds due to its being first by which others follow suit, we place each text according to the intended analysis of what it addresses. No one resorts to the tahawiyyah if they wish to understand errors that have happened with the later philosophers or the mutazilah, rather sources like the aqeedah of as-Saboonee or that of Ibn abi Zayd is looked into more. If one wishes to look into the errors of what happened to the asharis then the waasitiyyah is what is looked into as well as the aqeedah of hamawiyyah and also that of tadmuriyyah, all of which are detailed clarifications of which those who erred from the path of the athari creed were brought out and exposed. As far as the Risaalah is concerned, it is primarily in the refutation of the jahmiyyah as many of the creeds of that time were in direct rebuttal of them. So it is not a matter of making any particular text a base. It is a matter of which texts addresses what and what thing was a certain text repudiating and making clear. We, salafi/atharis, hold that all the Imaams were all salafi who adhered to the athair/salafi aqeedah. And of the imams whos asl was of this orientation, there were some who were flawless in this respect (not meaning infallible in everything), some who made slight marginal errors, and some who made more grave errors than others, all of which is due to the primary asl of their being human. Along with this, we hold it necessary to clarify what those who preceded us in knowledge have already clarified regarding the errors of those who erred. So it is not to be said that one must keep silent about them since you are no one and they are scholars and such a deception is repugnant and of no value and opposes some of the Islamic principles with ahlu-sunnah. From some of the harms of not doing so is 1. the persistence upon error taken by those who care not to come to right guidance 2. the notion that rank is a license to anything and everything by which taqleed is its resultant effect 3. the destruction of ones akhirah by which some may be prevented from the hawd 4. the splitting and violent behavioral patterns of the one who is brought with naseeha and the cutting off of the one seeking Baraka for wanting for his brother what he wishes for himself. 5. the notion that rank would entail their being above any criticism whatsoever

As far as my preference, as well as most salafis, we take to the creed laid down by Shaykhul-Islam more so than others due to his being the Ahmad of his time in terms of being the beacon of light in the midst of the false creeds merging into the Islamic world facing the same and similar scenarios of that of his predecessor Ahmad bin Hanbal. However, as far as referring to aqeedah on a general and encyclopedic level, then my preference as well as many salafis is in referening to the momumental work on creed, a

work unprecedented before and after, as the Sharh al-Usool al-Itiqaad by Hibatullah alLaalikaaee at-Tabari commonly known as Imaam al-Laalikaaee. It is a corpus of what our salaf were upon in terms of aqeedah and is the only aqeedah that can be called Islamic since our creed is one, not many. It is an aqeedah of all of those whos Islam is attested to as being saleem and is in fact in clear contradiction to those who came later among the khalaf whether they be the falasifiyoon, mutazilah, jahmiyyah, qadariyyah, ashaairah, mujassimah, mushabiha, or any of the ahlul-kalam groups.

Are the Ash'aris from ahlu-sunnah (Understanding as-safarinis words regarding them) One of the greatest deceptions utilized by our ash'ari bretheren is the statement The saved sect (meaning, Ahl al-Hadeeth), are the Atharis, the Asharis and the Maturidis. Here is the actual rendering of his words Some scholars said: (the saved sect) meaning, Ahl al-Hadeeth, i.e. the Atharis, the Asharis and the Maturidis From what I have encountered, no scholar in Islamic history before or during as-safarini's time has made this statement, ever. Nevertheless the fact that he says some scholars said is apparently something he heard that may have been going around or something he came across. Whatever the case, it is apparent that it is not something he agrees with. In fact his very sharh of this statement proves this. He states I say: The wording of the Hadeeth, i.e. The Prophet's statement: except one sect, contradicts the idea of multiplicity, and thus I said: This text (about the saved sect) cannot be applied to any sect Save the Ahl al-Athar (1/76) Thus, according to the very Imaam whom the Asharis and maturidis used his words to imply upon us that he accepted them as part of ahlu-sunnah, is himself negating them to be so based upon the understanding of the salaf of which bases its understanding of those who are saved on being none other than what the companions were upon which has been dealt with above. However if we, the Muslims, were ever sane enough to accept such a notion from our unwanted opponents, then based on their own premise, where did they ever exert this half hearted asl upon the atharis at any point in history. Ibnul-Qudamah is the champion of the athari aqeedah and is defamed by some of the asharis own predecessors. Ibn Taymiyyah is more so the hujjah of athari aqeedah since the time of Ahmad, and this is no exaggeration; it is merely understood by all atharis. And to this regard, I wish to clarify the mistake of those who claim to be athari and not salafi and yet fall victim to this deception made by ash'aris and thus decapitate their own manhaj for something other than the athari one. It was never in our athari history that these two other groups were ever among ahlu-sunnah in any era among our athari Imaams. So the common question is where is the atharihood of such a one who beleives in the opposite of what the athari ulema have laid down as to who ahlu-sunnah were. Our own Imaam Ahmad clarified who they were. His reply was Ahlul-Hadeeth who else

Did the Later Hanbalis (Ibn Taymiyyah particularly) oppose Ahmad as posed by ahlul-kalaam spokespeople Haddad, Keller, Abu Hasan, and others.

To understand this subject in a little depth, one must understand the reality of those who say so. What needs to be known in this regard for those who are unaware and wanting to know, is that this claim is made by people who fall outside the fold of the hanbali madhaab in totality and are themselves opposed to the very existence of the hanbali madhaab period? Hanbalis have an entire history of nothing but absolute war with all ahlul-kalaam, and in the medieval times, all of ahlul-kalaam constituted mainly of none other than asharis. So it becomes pertinent to understand the backdrop of these people. On one hand they are readily and willing to accept hanbalis among ahlu-sunnah due to the immense clarity of the fact that Ahmad and his school is utterly sunni in totality no matter if their hearts are in disdain for this. The reason for my hunch for what they hold as their intentions is what was wonderfully stated by shaykh Umar Sulaiman al-Ashqar with regards to the ahlulkalaam, particularly, the ash'aris. He says "Accordingly, it is clear that anyone who affirms the sifaat of Allah, the One, is someone who likens Allah to His creation and attributes body to Him, according to the opinion of those who deny the Attributes. However, some of them only accuse the followers of this doctrine (Ash'aris) of this and not the Imaams, even though deep within themselves they believe them (the Imaams) also guilty of it. There are those of them who dare to accuse the imaams of tashbeeh and tajseem (m'utazila) and others who even go as far as accusing the messengers of it (none but jahmiyyah and falasifyoon). IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE WHO FOLLOWS THE PATH OF THE SALAF TO ESCAPE THIS ACCUSATION" So with due honesty, From apparent actions, they give rise to the idea as to whether Ahmad Bin Hanbal was a Mujassim and other supreme hufaadh of the religion like Uthman Bin Sa'eed ad-Darimee and the other masters of Ahmad's era. Another aspect that must be mentioned in this regard is what these people look at to be agreement with Ahmad in his creed. These people (that Im refering too) are namely understood to be ash'aris and maturidis of which many of them are sufis. Whatever the case, an athaari to them means that such a person is a muwwaafidh meaning one who relegates the meaning of the texts regarding Allahs Names and Attributes to Allah Himself. This is nothing short of a demonstration of their utter ignorance. That is because the actuality of being athari is an absolute contrary reality to being a muwwaafidh. Basically in simple terms, if one is an athari, his aqeedah is that of ithbaat, simple and absolute affirmation. If one is a muwwaafidh, there is no affirmation because they are

simply rendering any meaning that comes with the texts to Allah, thus disbelieving in the apparent understanding of the texts, which is the absolute core of the athari aqeedah. So, in all honesty and without being partisan or inimical about describing their ignorance, it can easily be said that anyone who thinks that atharism or an athari can go hand in hand in ones aqeedah along with the aqeedah of tafweedh (relegation) is that such a person must have just landed one earth from mars. Now, the next matter is who said that ash'aris view that an athari is a muwwaafidh. Well, to my knowledge that was never stated specifically verbatim. However their actions speak louder than the words which I will demonstrate here in returning back to the original matter as to what ground are people standing on when they say that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah departed from the aqeedah of Imaam Ahmad. The ground on which these people stand on, their judging criterion as to their judgement on Ibn Taymiyyah, to my knowledge are 4 figures
1. 2. 3. 4. Najm al-Din at-Tufi Abu al-Fadhl at-Tamimi Abul-Wafa Ibn Aqil, Haafidh Ibn al-Jawzi

If one searches and understands who these people are, one will found out quite clearly the reality of these people and their unreliability in the school of Ahmad to begin with. And these authorities are the base for those who say that Ibn Taymiyyah opposes his Imaam, because they view the school of Ahmad to be other than what he viewed, and took the position of people who opposed Ahmad and made these opposers the criterion to the school of Ahmad. As for Al-Tufi, in spite of being a great Usuli, was a Hanbali, Ashari and Rafidhi in his own words, as reported by Ibn Rajab and Ibn Hajar. How can any sane individual rely on his statements about what the Hanbali creed is, or isnt, let alone deciding whether Ibn Taymiyah agrees with the Hanbali creed or not? So this at-Tufi is one of the source reference figures as to what constitutes an athari As for Abu al-Fadhl al-Tamimi , he was a close companion and an admirer of alBaqillani, and therefore much influenced by him in creed. He was affected by kalaam. Anyone who knows the athari aqeedah knows at a basic level that atharism and kalam never mixed, ever. If you are athari, you are by default, an enemy of kalaam, and if youre a kalami, then you are in opposition of the athari way. He derived aqeedah based on Baqilinis madhaab, and his madhaab was that of al-Ashari. As for Abu al-Wafa Ibn Aqil was influenced by the Mutazilah by his own admission, until he repented and adhered to the Madhab of Imam Ahmad in creed. However, some of his views still showed Mutazili influence. Secondly with regards to this imam, it is known he came one of the leading figureheads in the battle against Asharis after his repentance from their synonymous brothers in faith, the mutazilah.

And lastly, but not least, the bulk of where these none athari/salafi people gain much of their allegations about the alleged straying of Ibn Taymiyyah from Ahmad is none other than Ibn al-Jawzi, and to be quite honest without attacking on his status, was confused. This statement of mine is clear based on what many of the scholars have said regarding his aqeedah, which was nothing but confusion. His writings on creed are as contradictory as they can be, for often He affirms some of Allahs attributes, and then in another book makes Tawil of them, and then in a different book, attacks those who make Tawil! Hanbalis make excuse for him, saying that even though he never met Ibn Aqil, he is still regarded to be his student, because he grew up reading his books, and hence the Mutazili influence. Ibn Qudama also criticised his writings in theology as Ibn Rajab mentions in his Thail. So this is the reality of the ashari measuring stick when measuring Ibn Taymiyyahs creed with that of Ahmads, their criterion being those who where, are, and will always remain in the pit of unreliability regarding source understanding of athari creed of which constitutes the salafi creed. And to add to this mighty blunder on their part is another one like it by our ashari brethren. It is their constant and baseless idea of He (Ibn Taymiyyah) opposes the majority of his school. Again this is only a result of their ignorance due to their obviously not being hanbali. They bring forth fables like he opposes the hanbalis on talaq and other such issues and therefore making the deduction that the entirety of the hanbali school was at odds with him for leaving their usool. This is nothing but baseless because the hanbali madhaab has no issue with going against the mainstream of the previous jurists because it is based on following of the athaar. Basically hanbali fiqhiyyah wise, usooli wise and shar'i matters are all based on al-ahkaamul-hadeeth, meaning ahkaam are derived solely through hadeeth. So as long as a position was proven as existent in the time of the companions and the salaf, then even if there is only one opinion and at variance with the whole school, that does not mean anything, at least to the hanbali madhaab. But that is not the case of other madhaabs, of which such people attribute their usool and apply it to ours and think and would like to believe that their usool are applied in hanbali madhaab just as in their own respective madhaab. One more issue to add is their incorrect assumption that Imaam Ahmad made tafweedh, which could be another aspect to the reasoning that atharis are muwwaafidha according to them. There usual error in this regard is due to their misunderstanding of 'pass it on as it has come. They misconstrue this statement to be that of tafweedh. That is because the Ash'ari concept of tafweedh mainly, is to affirm the wording as detached letters while negating the literal meaning thereof, whereas the Salafi Tafweedh is to affirm the literal meaning and negate the kayf thereof. So to conclude. When it is said by me that Ash'aris hold the atharis to be the muwwaafidha, it is noticed inherently, it is not that they say so verbatim, but that their view of the perfect athari are the likes of Ibnul-Jawzi and those whom it has been confirmed to have left the athari aqeedah for that of t'awil and tafweedh. That is why they view all other hanbali's before Ibn Taymiyyah to be outright mujassimah either sarih

(clear) or ghayr (not so clear) and those after Ibn Taymiyyah as those who have been influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah since they understand the status of this Mediterranean monster and Allah is Azeezul-Hakeem

Subhanakallah wa bi hamdik, ash hadu anal illaha ila anta, astaghfiruka, wa atubu elaik