False Claims About “Foundations of the Religion”
Some people falsely label certain theological arguments as “the foundations of the religion,” even though these are not part of what the Prophet or the early generations considered foundational. These include speculative arguments such as denying Allah’s attributes, denying qadar (predestination), and trying to prove that the universe is created by analysing “accidents” (attributes of bodies, like motion and rest).
Their approach involves several steps: proving accidents exist, proving they are originated, claiming bodies cannot be free from them, and then arguing that an infinite past is impossible—thus concluding the world must be originated.
Not the Way of the Prophet or the Salaf
This approach is not how the Prophet or his companions called people to believe in Allah or the messengers. Even leading theologians like al-Ashʿari admitted this was not the way of the messengers or the Salaf.
The ulama refuted this approach for having unclear premises and for failing to produce certain proof. Those who based their faith on it either became confused, unable to choose between arguments, or accepted beliefs that contradict revelation and reason—such as the claim that Paradise and Hell will end, or that people in Paradise will not move.
Flawed Consequences and Logical Errors
These speculative approaches led some groups to deny fundamental beliefs, like the eternal Quran, the beatific vision of Allah, and His elevation above the Throne.
To defend their flawed logic, they had to deny that accidents can remain, which forced them into more contradictions. Some said that accidents cannot vanish unless something else causes their removal, which others rejected, arguing that a willful Creator can both bring things into being and remove them.
Misguidance Rooted in False Premises
Because these groups based their argument for the creation of the world on the presence of originated attributes, they concluded that everything with attributes must be originated. This forced them to deny Allah’s attributes and ended in severe misguidance. Their claims, though labelled “foundations of the religion,” were built on logic that leads to falsehood and cannot be from the Prophet, since truth does not produce falsehood. If a claim necessarily leads to falsehood, then it too must be false.
Distinction Between True and False Foundations
Allah criticised those who make up religion: “Do they have partners who legislated for them in religion that which Allah did not permit?” (al-Shura: 21). Innovators often divide their invented religion into “foundations” and “branches,” but the true foundations of religion are only what the Prophet brought. If something necessarily leads to false conclusions, then it is false and not from the Prophet. While a false claim can have some accidental truth, if the falsehood is necessary to its outcome, the entire argument is invalid.
Difference Between Definitions, Proofs, and Causes
A valid proof leads to a valid conclusion, and invalid conclusions reflect an invalid proof. This is unlike definitions, which require mutual direction. Causes, on the other hand, vary—some require both directions (like complete causes), while others (like partial ones) do not. This explains why the Salaf and imams criticised speculative theology (kalam)—because it used false reasoning or tried to prove false beliefs.
Speaking Truth in Proper Language
Those who follow the path of truth—using arguments and proofs that Allah permits—are the true scholars. It is acceptable to use others’ languages or technical terms when needed, as long as the meanings are correct. The Prophet himself used foreign words when appropriate, and translating the Quran and Sunnah for those who need it is allowed. Reading and translating texts from other languages is also permissible when needed.
Translation: As for the falsehoods that some people introduce under the name of “the foundations of the religion,” these are not in fact part of the religion’s foundations—even if someone labels them as such. This includes corrupt issues and flawed arguments, such as denying the attributes, denying predestination, and so on. Also included are arguments like: claiming that the world is created because accidents—which are the qualities of bodies—are originated, whether those are the akwan (like motion, stillness, joining, separation) or others.
They try to build this argument in steps. First: proving that accidents (which are the attributes of bodies) exist. Or at least proving some of them, like the akwan (motion, stillness, etc.). Second: proving that these are originated by rejecting the claim that they merely appear after being hidden, or that they move from one place to another.
Third: proving that a body cannot be free from these accidents, either by claiming that a body must have a property or its opposite (since the one who accepts something must accept either it or its opposite), or at least claiming it cannot be free from the akwan. Fourth: arguing that an infinite series of events in the past is impossible.
This last point is built on two premises: that a body cannot be without accidents (which are attributes), and that whatever cannot be without originated attributes must itself be originated, since accidents can only be originated. Sometimes they use specific attributes like the akwan, saying: whatever cannot be separated from occurrences is itself an occurrence, since an infinite chain of events in the past is impossible.
This approach is clearly not the path by which the Prophet called people to affirm the Creator and the messengers.
Even the sharpest minds among the theologians, such as al-Ash‘ari and others, admitted that this was not the approach of the messengers, nor of their followers, nor of the Salaf and the imams of the ummah. They stated that this approach is actually forbidden, and those who scrutinised it declared it to be false. They pointed out that its premises contain ambiguities and distinctions that prevent the conclusion from being absolutely established.
As a result, you find that anyone who bases his religion on this approach ends up with one of two outcomes: Either he realises its weakness, compares it with the arguments of those who believe in the eternity of the universe, and finds the two sides equally strong—so he wavers between them, just like many theologians. Or he accepts conclusions that are clearly false both in the Sharia and in reason. For example, Jahm claimed that Paradise and Hell will perish, based on these arguments. (Footnote: Jahm ibn Safwan’s belief in the end of Paradise and Hell is quoted in Maqalat al-Ash‘ari 2/542, al-Milal wa al-Nihal 1/173, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, p. 128, and other classical sources.)
Similarly, Abu al-Hudhayl claimed that the people of Paradise would cease to move. Others, such as al-Ash‘ari and those who followed his approach, claimed that water, air, soil, and fire have taste, colour, smell, and so on.
Others went even further and claimed that all accidents (such as taste and colour) cannot remain at all, because they had to respond to objections: how could you prove that bodies are originated based on their attributes, while also affirming the eternal attributes of Allah? They replied: the attributes of bodies are accidents, meaning they occur and then vanish, so they cannot remain. But the attributes of Allah are permanent and never cease.
Some among them argued: if an accident exists, it cannot cease to exist, because its ceasing would require either a new opposing attribute, the removal of a condition, or the choice of the actor—all of which they claimed are impossible. But others among them rejected this argument. They held that a willing actor may choose to remove something just as he chooses to create it. They also denied the claim that the body can only cease to exist by cutting off its attributes, or that a new opposite must appear in a place—such as the Mu‘tazilah claimed (Footnote: Abu al-Hudhayl’s position is mentioned in Maqalat al-Ash‘ari 2/403, al-Milal wa al-Nihal 1/173, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, p. 173, and al-Tabsir fi al-Din by al-Isfarayini, p. 96.)
False Reasoning and Its Consequences
Most rational people reject these claims as being against what is known by the senses. Groups from among the theologians and Mu‘tazilah denied Allah’s attributes altogether or denied some of them based on these flawed arguments. Since their argument for the origination of created things depended on attributes, and since their logic demands consistency, they committed themselves to declaring that every being with attributes is originated. This is extreme falsehood and misguidance.
This led them to deny the eternal Quran, the beatific vision of Allah in the Hereafter, and Allah’s elevation above the Throne, and other such conclusions. These consequences follow inevitably from their flawed premises, which the Mu‘tazilah and those who followed them made into the very foundation of their religion.
So although these matters were called by them “the foundations of the religion,” they are in truth not the foundations of the religion that Allah legislated for His servants.
True Foundations vs. False Legislation
The religion which Allah condemned with His words—“Or do they have partners who legislated for them in the religion that which Allah did not permit?” (al-Shura: 21)—has its own “foundations” and “branches,” according to the innovator’s view.
Once it is known that the term “foundations of the religion” (usul al-din), as used by these groups, contains ambiguity and overlap due to different conventions and terminologies, it becomes clear that what is truly considered the foundations of the religion by Allah, His Messenger, and the believing servants is that which is inherited from the Prophet himself.
And as for those who created a religion which Allah did not permit, it is known that its foundations—which necessarily lead to falsehood—cannot be from the Prophet, since falsehood cannot come from him. And what necessarily leads to falsehood is itself false. (Footnote: Al-Fatawa al-Kubra 1/378)
Just as the necessary consequence of truth is truth, the proof is a necessary indicator of what it proves. If the proof is valid, so is what it proves. If the result is invalid, so is the proof. If the necessary outcome is false, then the whole thing is false. But the reverse isn’t always true: something may be false, but its consequences not necessarily so. But if something necessarily leads to falsehood, then that thing is also false.
This is like creation: it necessitates the existence of a Creator, but the Creator’s existence is not dependent on creation. A proof always leads to what it proves, but the reverse doesn’t necessarily hold—unlike a definition, which requires both directions.
True Causation vs. Mere Suggestion
As for causes, a complete cause requires both forward and backward connection. But a partial cause or condition may not. This distinction also clarifies what the Salaf and imams meant when they condemned “kalam” (speculative theology) and its people. They were referring to those who used false arguments or used arguments to support false claims. (Footnote: See Bayān, p. 98; Fatawa al-Riyad 3/206; al-Fatawa al-Kubra 1/379.)
True Scholars vs. People of Innovation
But those who speak the truth—what Allah has permitted as both ruling and evidence—are the true people of knowledge and faith. As Allah said: “And Allah speaks the truth, and He guides to the way” (al-Ahzab: 4).
Using the Language of Others When Necessary
As for speaking to people using their own technical language or terms, this is not disliked when needed and the meanings are correct—just as speaking to non-Arabs like Romans, Persians, and Turks in their languages and customs is permissible. This is good and allowed when necessary. The imams only disliked it when there was no need.
This is why the Prophet said to Umm Khalid bint Khalid ibn Sa‘id ibn al-‘As—who was a child born in Abyssinia while her father was among the emigrants there: “O Umm Khalid, this is sana.” “Sana” means “good” in the Abyssinian language. (Footnote: The hadith is in al-Bukhari, Kitab Manaqib al-Ansar, Bab Hijrat al-Habasha, and in Kitab al-Libas, Bab Ma Yud‘a Liman Labisa Thawban Jadidan. In the narration from Sa‘id ibn al-‘As, his father narrated from Umm Khalid: the Prophet was brought a black garment and said: “Who should we clothe with this?” … until he said: “O Umm Khalid, this is sana.” Sana in Abyssinian means “good.”)
And likewise, the Quran and hadith are translated for those who need to understand them, and Muslims may read the writings of other nations in their languages when needed, then translate them into Arabic.
Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql wal-naql (1/38-43)
