Misuse of Ambiguous Terminology From The Mutakallimeen

Ibn Taymiyyah shows how the mutakallimeen speak without knowledge and use unclear language to mislead the common people. They redefine familiar Arabic words like intellect (aql), substance, accident, body, form, occurence, essence, existence, etc.) with meanings foreign to their original use in the Qur’an and Arabic language, thereby creating confusion.

Difference Between Prophetic Terminology and Philosophical Jargon

Every science has its own technical terms, but when such terminology is misused in theology, it leads to distortion. These philosophers and theologians introduce alien definitions that differ from the meanings from the Qur’an. They often claim that their redefined terms are in harmony with reason and Sharia, but their real meanings oppose both.

Misrepresentation of Tawheed

A major example is the redefinition of tawheed (the oneness of Allah). The philosophers define tawheed as denying Allah’s attributes, His distinctiveness, and the possibility of seeing Him. But the tawheed brought by the Prophet (peace be upon him) is about affirming that only Allah is worshipped, obeyed, and relied upon—and this includes affirming His names and attributes.

The Prophet’s Understanding of Tawheed

Ibn Taymiyyah quotes a hadith of Jabir during the Farewell Pilgrimage, where the Prophet (peace be upon him) started his talbiyah (pilgrimage declaration) with pure tawheed, rejecting the distorted formulas of pre-Islamic polytheists, that Allah alone is to be worshipped, without partners or rivals, rather than abstract philosophical ideas about existence and essence.

The error of these groups lies in abandoning the clear, straightforward language of the Qur’an and using ambiguous terms that were never taught by the prophets.

Their confusion leads them to redefine core religious beliefs in ways that mislead others and contradict both revelation and sound reason.

True tawheed is what the Prophet brought: exclusive worship of Allah along with affirmation of His names and attributes, not abstract negations cloaked in obscure terminology.

Speaking Without Knowledge and Using Ambiguous Language

They contradict the Book, speak about Allah and His religion and His Book without knowledge. They speak without knowledge, using unclear and ambiguous language, and deceive the ignorant among the people with what they confuse them by. So we seek refuge in Allah from the trials caused by those who misguide others.

What is meant here is his statement: “They speak with ambiguous language and deceive the ignorant among the people with what they confuse them by.” This ambiguous language that they use to influence the ignorant is full of vague, unclear expressions by which they oppose the clear texts of the Book and the Sunnah.

These expressions exist in the Book, the Sunnah, and people’s speech—but with meanings other than what these people intend. They intend other meanings by them, which causes confusion and vagueness. For example, the words ʿaql (intellect), ʿaaqil (rational), and maʿqool (intelligible): the word ʿaql in the language of the Muslims refers to an accident—either the act of understanding (as in “ʿaqala yaʿqilu ʿaqlan”) or a faculty by which one understands, which is called al-farīza. But they intend by it an abstract, self-subsisting essence.

The same applies to terms like “matter” and “form,” and also to terms like “substance,” “accident,” “body,” “space,” “direction,” “composition,” “part,” “need,” “religion (milla),” “effect (maʿlool),” “lover (ʿāshiq),” “love (ʿishq),” and “beloved (maʿshooq).”

Even terms like “one” in the context of tawheed, or “origination (huduth),” “eternity (qidam),” “necessary (wājib),” “possible (mumkin),” “existence (wujood),” “existent (mawjood),” and “essence (dhaat),” and other such words.

There is no field of knowledge without its people admitting that they use technical terms to convey specific meanings to each other—just as people in practical crafts use technical terms to refer to their tools and practices. These are convention-based terminologies, defined by specific groups, and the intended meanings are different from their original meanings in general language. Whether those meanings are true or false is a separate matter.

Given that, this issue requires clarification: These people who oppose the truth—if they are not addressed in their own language and technical terms—may say: “We do not understand what is being said to us,” or: “The one replying to us has not understood what we are saying.” And they confuse people by saying: “What we meant in our words is a truth that is known by reason or by inner experience.”

They may also say: “It agrees with the Sharia,” unless they want to openly oppose it—like the atheists among the Qaramita and philosophers and those like them. But if they are addressed in their own terminology and language, it becomes clear that their terms are not the familiar language in which the Qur’an was revealed—so this may lead to an apparent contradiction with the words of the Qur’an.

This is because they describe the meanings established in the Qur’an using other expressions not found in the Qur’an, or sometimes found in the Qur’an with entirely different meanings. So these expressions are not affirmed by the Qur’an.

In fact, their common meaning in the Arabic language in which the Qur’an was revealed may be invalid and rejected,by both the Sharia and reason. And they use these expressions for meanings different from what they mean in Arabic. So when they use them, they may not appear false in Arabic, but in their own private terminology, those same terms imply falsehood.

Therefore, when they are addressed in Arabic, they say: “You did not understand what we meant.” And when they are addressed using their terminology, they begin to make it seem as though the speaker is contradicting the Qur’an. This problem stems from these expressions being vague and ambiguous.

This is the case with terms previously mentioned like: “eternity,” “emergence,” “substance,” “body,” “accident,” “composite,” “composed,” “distinguished,” “part,” “oneness,” and “unity.” In their terminology, they mean by “tawheed” and “one”: that Allah has no attribute, that nothing is known about Him over anything else, and that He is not seen.

But the tawheed that the Prophet brought does not involve any of this negation. It only involves affirming divinity (uluhiyyah) for Allah alone, that one bears witness that there is no god but Him, that He alone is worshipped, that one relies only on Him, is loyal only for His sake, opposes only for His sake, and acts only for His sake. And this necessarily includes affirming for Him the names and attributes He affirmed for Himself.

Jabir ibn Abd Allah said in the authentic hadith in the context of the Farewell Pilgrimage: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, began his talbiyah with tawheed: ‘Labbayka Allahumma labbayk, labbayka laa shareeka laka labbayk, innal-hamda wan-niʿmata laka wal-mulk, laa shareeka lak.’ In the time of ignorance (Jahiliyyah), they used to say: ‘Labbayk laa shareeka laka, illa shareekan huwa laka, tamlikuhu wa maa malak (you have no partner—except a partner who is yours; you own him and what he owns).’

So the Prophet, peace be upon him, began his talbiyah with tawheed, as mentioned.” (Footnote: The hadith is found in Musnad Ahmad (4/267, Dar al-Maʿarif edition) with the wording: “Labbayka Allahumma labbayk, laa shareeka laka labbayk, innal-hamda wan-niʿmata laka wal-mulk, laa shareeka lak.” Ibn Abbas said: “He ended his talbiyah with these words of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.” The verifying scholar said: “Its chain is authentic.” It is also found in Majmaʿ al-Zawa’id, hadith no. 2404, where it is said: “Narrated by Ahmad, and its narrators are trustworthy.” It is also in Sahih Muslim 2/841 (Book of Hajj, Chapter on the Talbiyah and its Form).

Allah said: “Your God is one God. There is no god but Him, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate” (al-Baqara: 163).

He also said: “And Allah said: Do not take two gods. Indeed, He is only one God. So fear Me alone” (al-Nahl: 51).

And He said: “Whoever calls upon another god along with Allah without proof, his reckoning is only with his Lord” (al-Muʾminun: 117).

And He said: “Ask those We sent before you from among Our messengers: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Most Merciful?” (al-Zukhruf: 45).

Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql wal-naql (1/222-224)