Some contemporary people declare all Ashʿaris disbelievers by associating them with the Jahmiyyah, claiming that since the Salaf made takfir of the Jahmiyyah, the same applies to the Ashʿaris. Their arguments always return to connecting the Ashʿaris with the Jahmiyyah, especially in issues like denying Allah’s elevation or the nature of the Quran.

The Salaf did speak harshly against the Jahmiyyah and used takfir expressions against them. Ibn Taymiyyah reported that scholars like Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak and others saw the Jahmiyyah as outside the seventy-two sects of Islam, and their statements were even worse than those of the Jews and Christians.

However, these points refer to the pure Jahmiyyah who denied all of Allah’s attributes. Over time, the word “Jahmiyyah” expanded to include groups like the Muʿtazilah and even the Ashʿaris, but this does not mean that the same rulings always apply. Jahmiyyah became a spectrum, with people differing in how much of their beliefs they took.

Ibn Taymiyyah aswell as the early imams only intended the pure Jahmiyyah in their strongest statements of criticism. Later, the word Jahmiyyah included groups like the Muʿtazilah and Ashʿaris, but the Salaf did not always mean the same thing each time they used the term “kuffar”. Sometimes the Salaf meant those who denied all attributes; sometimes they meant those who shared some views with the Jahmiyyah.

Jahmiyyah became a broader category. Some people were only called Jahmiyyah because they shared certain points with them, not because they fully agreed or deserved the same ruling. Ibn Taymiyyah said that people are not all equal in Jahmiyyah, just like the different levels in Shiʿism.

So, it is not correct to apply the rulings for the early, pure Jahmiyyah to the later groups called Jahmiyyah, like the Ashʿaris, without understanding the difference.

One of the biggest mistakes is to take a general statement about kufr and apply it to every individual. The scholars explained that declaring a statement or action to be kufr does not mean every person who says or does it is a disbeliever. This only applies when all the conditions are met and obstacles are removed.

Ibn Taymiyyah gave examples where a person says something wrong due to ignorance or a misunderstanding and is not declared a disbeliever until the proof is clearly established against him. Even Imam Ahmad, while making general takfir of the Jahmiyyah, did not declare every individual Jahmi a disbeliever.

Imam Ahmad and other imams were tested and oppressed by the Jahmiyyah, but he still prayed for them and did not declare them apostates. This shows that general rulings do not always apply to individuals, and even the worst Jahmiyyah were sometimes not declared disbelievers by name unless all conditions for takfir were met.

Contemporary claimants often say the Ashʿaris have the same beliefs as the early Jahmiyyah and so deserve the same ruling. But this is incorrect. The term Jahmiyyah can be used for many groups, but this does not make their rulings the same. Even if the Ashʿaris agree with some Jahmi views, this does not mean they are the same.

Ibn Taymiyyah explained that even if a person falls into some errors or even statements of disbelief, he is only judged as a disbeliever if he truly adopts those beliefs after clear proof is given and excuses are removed. Many who were confused or followed the Jahmiyyah in some issues still had faith and were not disbelievers, and could even be among the awliya (close friends) of Allah if their faith and piety were strong.

Some claim that because knowledge is widespread today, all Ashʿaris have had the proof established against them and so can be declared disbelievers by name. This is false. Establishing the proof depends on time, place, and individual understanding. As innovation spreads and times move away from the Prophet’s era, it becomes harder for people to find and follow the clear truth.

Ibn Taymiyyah said a believer can make mistakes in belief and still be forgiven if he did not know the proof. Takfir can only be applied to a person if three things are true: the belief is clearly kufr, the person knows and understands this, and there are no barriers like ignorance or misinterpretation. Even Imam Ahmad only declared someone a disbeliever by name if all conditions were fulfilled and all excuses removed.

If someone takes the harshest sayings of the Salaf about the Jahmiyyah and applies them blindly, he would end up declaring not only the Ashʿaris but also many great scholars as disbelievers, including Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and modern scholars like Ibn Baz and the Permanent Committee, because they all clearly refused to declare Ashʿaris disbelievers.

This shows it is a mistake to apply these statements about the Jahmiyyah without investigation, context, and knowledge of the differences between groups and individuals.

Navigation Menu

The Types Of Jahmiyyah

The distinction made by the Salaf in their judgement of the Jahmiyyah

General rulings are not the same as specific rulings

No judgement is passed based on implications unless someone adopts them

Establishing The Proof Before Takfiring An Ash’ari

Taking some of the Salaf’s sayings about the takfir of the Jahmiyyah in an unrestricted manner

Introduction

The issue of takfir is one of the major matters that the scholars of Islam, past and present, have paid great attention to. There is no doubt that it carries serious and far-reaching consequences, both in practice and in knowledge. Among those who pointed out the danger of this matter and its seriousness was Ibn Abi al ʿIzz, who said: “And know, may Allah have mercy on you and us, that the matter of declaring someone a disbeliever or not is a door in which tribulation and hardship have become severe, disagreement has increased, desires and opinions have become scattered, and their proofs have contradicted one another” (Sharh al-Tahawiyyah, p. 296).

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, also explained the great confusion in this issue, saying: “The ummah has become deeply confused in declaring people of innovation and desires to be disbelievers, just as they were, both in the past and present, in stripping iman from sinners and those who commit major sins” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 12/466).

It is necessary for the student of knowledge to have precision in this matter, so that he does not transgress against others, whether those who agree with him or disagree. There is no doubt that it is not permissible to wrongfully accuse someone of fisq or kufr if they do not deserve it. That is why the scholars of Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah consistently affirm that they do not declare people disbelievers just in return for being declared disbelievers themselves.

In this regard, Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “For this reason, the people of knowledge and Sunnah do not declare disbelievers those who oppose them, even if that opponent declares them disbelievers, because kufr is a legal ruling, and it is not allowed for a person to retaliate in kind, just as if someone lied about you or committed zina with your wife, it would not be permissible for you to lie about him or commit zina with his wife, because lying and zina are forbidden due to the right of Allah” (al-Istighathah fi al-Radd ʿala al-Bakri, p. 252).

The methodology of Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah in takfir is clear. Ahlus sunnah have established rules in this area and clarified its boundaries. They did not fall into the extremism of the Khawarij or the Waʿidiyyah, nor did they limit kufr only to denial. Rather, they explained the general and specific types of kufr, as well as the conditions and preventatives of takfir.

Among their precision is that they only apply takfir to specific individuals with knowledge and justice. The method of Ahl al Sunnah avoids all forms of oppression or judgement by anything other than what Allah and His messenger have ruled, or anything not reported from the Salaf, may Allah be pleased with them.

An example of this is declaring a large group of people to be disbelievers by name without any valid textual basis. Among these examples is the judgement of some contemporaries who declare all the Ashʿaris to be disbelievers by name, and they attribute this view to the Salaf, or claim that this judgement follows the methodology of the Salaf even if the Salaf themselves did not actually apply it. They apply this ruling to both past and present Ashʿaris and declare them disbelievers by name.

The takfir of specific individuals from the Ashʿari madhhab concerns us because the goal is to follow the truth and deal justly with others. We must place people in the positions that Allah has placed them in. The Muslim is not unjust, does not wrong others, and does not exceed the limits in judgement. Clarifying the position on takfir of specific Ashʿaris is also a defence of the methodology of the Salaf, may Allah be pleased with them, by removing from them false claims attributed to them.

It also serves to remove takfir from a large number of the virtuous and righteous scholars of the ummah who follow the Ashʿari madhhab. No matter how significant and serious the doctrinal disagreement may be, it is not permissible to declare someone outside the fold of Islam if Allah has not ruled that way. Doing so would be injustice and oppression, something Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah do not approve of.

Takfir by the Salaf of the Jahmiyyah

These contemporary individuals base their takfir of the Ashʿaris on a number of points. If one considers them carefully, they all come back to the idea of associating the Ashʿaris with the Jahmiyyah. According to their claim, the Ashʿaris are either Jahmiyyah or worse, and since the Salaf declared the Jahmiyyah to be disbelievers, then the Ashʿaris must also be disbelievers. So their takfir rests upon these two premises.

This is their main argument in declaring the Ashʿaris disbelievers by name. Even when they speak about the denial of Allah’s elevation or about the Ashʿaris’ statements regarding the Quran, they tie it all back to Jahmism. So every one of their arguments for takfir traces back to this point. Their entire discourse revolves around this. The issue can be summarised in the following points:

The Salaf’s takfir of the Jahmiyyah:

There is no doubt that the Salaf spoke very harshly against the Jahmiyyah in general, and used expressions of takfir against them. This is not something in dispute between the Salafi scholars and others. This was reported from many scholars.

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “The Jahmiyyah, according to many of the Salaf like Abdullah ibn al Mubarak, Yusuf ibn Asbat, and a group from the companions of Imam Ahmad and others, are not among the seventy-two sects that the ummah split into. Rather, their foundational groups were the Khawarij, the Shiʿah, the Murjiʿah, and the Qadariyyah” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 12/486).

He also said: “Abdullah ibn al Mubarak used to say: We can quote the speech of the Jews and Christians, but we cannot even bring ourselves to quote the speech of the Jahmiyyah” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 2/127).

He was asked, “How do you know your Lord?” He replied, “Above His heavens, upon His Throne.”

And he said to one of them, “Do you think you are void of Him?” So the man was left speechless.

And he said: “Whoever says that لا إله إلا الله is created is a kafir.

Indeed, we can repeat the words of the Jews and the Christians, but we cannot repeat the words of the Jahmiyyah (Highlighted Orange).”

Khalq Afaal Al Ibaad By Imam Al Bukhari (1/31)

This part of what the contemporaries say is not in dispute. The entire issue lies in their attempt to take this ruling and apply it to the Ashʿaris, arguing that they too are Jahmiyyah or that they adopted some of the views of the Jahmiyyah and so became like them. But this is incorrect, as will be clarified.

The Jahmiyyah are of different categories

The imam Abdullah ibn al Mubarak, may Allah have mercy on him, whose statement was quoted earlier, died in the second century. His speech refers to the pure Jahmiyyah, those who denied all the attributes. This point is extremely important so that people do not misapply such statements to those who do not belong in that category.

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, when mentioning the takfir of the Jahmiyyah, ties it in some places to “the pure Jahmiyyah,” and his words will be quoted shortly. Later on, the term “Jahmiyyah” came to include the Muʿtazilah as well, and some of the speech of Imam Ahmad and others of his time was aimed at the Muʿtazilah, for his trials were with the heads of the Muʿtazilah like Ahmad ibn Abi Duʾad and others. Later on, scholars included the Ashʿaris in the broader meaning of Jahmiyyah.

So when the Salaf used the word “Jahmiyyah,” sometimes they meant the pure Jahmiyyah, and at other times they meant anyone who fell short in affirming the attributes or whose speech resembled the Jahmiyyah in that specific issue.

This broader Jahmism includes the Muʿtazilah, the Ashʿaris, and the Kullabiyyah, as explained. Jahmism is a spectrum, as Ibn Taymiyyah said: “And among those who fell into this [i.e., interpreting Allah’s love] are those who ascribed themselves to supporting the Sunnah among the people of kalam, such that some of the followers of Malik, al Shafiʿi, and Ahmad fell into it, like al Qadi Abu Bakr, al Qadi Abu Yaʿla, al Juwayni, and others like them. This is in reality a branch of Jahmism and Iʿtizal” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 10/697).

Translation: Those who agreed with the Salaf, the imams, and the shuyukh regarding the bliss of seeing Allah, differed about the matter of love, which is the foundation of that belief. Groups among the mutakallimeen and jurists went to the view that Allah is not loved in Himself. Rather, what is loved is obedience to Him and worship of him.

They also said that He does not love his believing servants. Rather, His love means His will to show goodness to them and to support them.

Those who held this view included people who ascribed themselves to defending the Sunnah from among the people of kalam. Some among the followers of Malik, al Shafiʿi, and Ahmad fell into this, such as al Qadi Abu Bakr, al Qadi Abu Yaʿla, Abu al Maʿali al Juwayni, and others like them.

(Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 10/697)

He also said: “People are not on the same level when it comes to Jahmism. Rather, their differences in Jahmism are like their differences in Shiʿism” (al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 6/368).

Translation: Since the root of Jahm’s statement goes back to the doctrine of the altered teachings of the Sabians, and these are worse than the Jews and the Christians, the imams used to say that their statement is worse than the statement of the Jews and the Christians, even if they are better than the idolaters like those whom Jahm debated and those like him who deny the existence of the Creator or who hold that another being must be worshipped alongside him.

For those Sabians are not like that, but even if they do not affirm shirk, they may not prohibit it either. Rather, they may permit both tawheed and shirk together, and they see the worship of the people of tawheed and the worship of the people of shirk both as good. They do not reject this nor that, as is found in their speech and their writings.

But people are not on one level when it comes to Jahmism. Rather, their divisions in Jahmism resemble their divisions in Shiʿism.

(al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 6/368).

So the discourse on the Jahmiyyah and declaring them disbelievers varies by time period. It is crucial to consider the historical context in which takfir of the Jahmiyyah was made. Many of the contemporary claimants try to take the speech of Ibn al Mubarak and others and apply it to the contemporary Ashʿaris, even though the Ashʿaris differ greatly from those early Jahmiyyah. This is a mistaken application, as Ibn Taymiyyah and others have clarified.

In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah clearly states that the Ashʿaris are closer to the Sunnah than the Jahmiyyah. He said: “The Jahmiyyah are of three levels. The worst of them are the extremists who deny all the names and attributes of Allah, and if they do name Him with one of His beautiful names, they say it is metaphorical. In truth, they do not believe He is living, knowing, able, hearing, seeing, speaking, or that He speaks…

The third level includes those who affirm Allah’s names and attributes in general but deny some of them, whether textual or rational. These interpret the attributes just like the early ones interpreted all of them.

Among them are those who affirm the attributes in the Quran but not those in hadith, as is the case with many people of kalam, fiqh, and some among the people of hadith. Among them are those who affirm the attributes in hadith generally but still deny and negate some of what is established by text and reason.

This includes Abu Muhammad ibn Kullab and those who followed him. Into this category fall Abu al Hasan al Ashari and groups from the people of fiqh, kalam, hadith, and tasawwuf. These are closer to Ahl al Sunnah al Mahdah than to the Jahmiyyah, the Rafidah, the Khawarij, or the Qadariyyah.

But some who attributed themselves to them were closer to the Jahmiyyah than to Ahl al Sunnah al Mahdah. These ones disagreed strongly with the Muʿtazilah about affirming the attributes, even more so than they disagreed with the other affirmers about the attributes they denied” (al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 6/370–372).

So merely resembling the Jahmiyyah in some matters does not mean the same ruling applied to the pure Jahmiyyah applies to the Ashʿaris, Kullabis, and others. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “As for Ibn Kullab, al Qalanisi, and al Ashari, they are not part of that group. Rather, they are known as affirmers of the attributes and are famous for the madhhab of affirmation. But in their speech are some foundational elements of Jahmism…

Many among them affirm the attributes, the vision, and the rising over the Throne. They were only called Jahmiyyah in some matters because they agreed with the Jahmiyyah in those, to show the weakness of their view, not because they were like the Jahmiyyah or deserved the same ruling. No one who understands what is being said would make such a claim” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 12/206).

Full Translation: As for Ibn Kullab, al Qalanisi, and al Ashʿari, they are not from that category. Rather, these are known for affirming the attributes and are famous for the madhhab of affirmation. However, in their statements are elements taken from the foundational principles of the Jahmiyyah.

People say that because of this, contradictions follow from their views, and that they combine two opposites, and that they say things that are unintelligible. Some describe them as being wavering, belonging neither fully to this side nor to that side. This is the reason why some see in their statements something of the Jahmiyyah.

Just as the imams, like Ahmad and others, used to say: “The Jahmiyyah split into three groups: one group says the Quran is created, one group remains silent and says neither created nor uncreated, and one group says our utterances of the Quran are created.”

It is known that they only meant this division in regard to the issue of the Quran specifically. Otherwise, many of these affirmed the attributes, the vision of Allah, and that He is above the Throne.

They were classified as Jahmiyyah in some issues, meaning they agreed with the Jahmiyyah in certain matters to show the weakness of their view, not because they were like the Jahmiyyah in every way, nor that their ruling is the same as the ruling on the Jahmiyyah. No one who understands what is being said would claim that.

For this reason, most of Ahmad’s speech focuses on the Jahmiyyah among the Lafziyyah, and he rarely issued a general takfir of them as he did with those who held the belief in the Quran being created. This view was attributed to several well-known scholars of the Sunnah and hadith, such as al Husayn al Karabi, Nuʿaym ibn Hammad al Khuzāʿi, al Bawwabti, and al Harith al Muhasibi. Some even attributed it to al Bukhari.

(Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 12/206-207)

So it is not correct to take a ruling given about the pure Jahmiyyah in the second century and apply it to those who were labelled Jahmiyyah in general terms in the fourth century or later.

Likewise, it is not correct to take a ruling about the later Jahmiyyah from among the Ashʿaris and apply it to the early pure Jahmiyyah. This is similar to the issue of the Qadariyyah. What was said about the extremists among them cannot be applied to the later Qadariyyah, even if they share the same name.

The distinction made by the Salaf in their judgement of the Jahmiyyah

In the previous point, I mentioned that the Salaf declared the Jahmiyyah disbelievers.

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote precise words about the takfir of the Jahmiyyah. I will quote them along with commentary so that it becomes clear how the Salaf judged the Jahmiyyah, and who among them they actually declared disbelievers. The text is of great importance. He said:

“As for identifying the misguided sects, the earliest person we know of who spoke about declaring them misguided was Yusuf ibn Asbat, followed by Abdullah ibn al Mubarak. Both were great imams among the leading imams of the Muslims. They said that the foundations of innovation are four: the Rawafid, the Khawarij, the Qadariyyah, and the Murji’ah. It was said to Ibn al Mubarak, ‘And the Jahmiyyah?’

He replied, ‘Those are not from the ummah of Muhammad.’ And he used to say, ‘We can repeat the speech of the Jews and Christians, but we cannot even bring ourselves to repeat the speech of the Jahmiyyah.’ What he said was followed by a group of scholars from among the companions of Ahmad and others, who said that the Jahmiyyah are disbelievers and therefore do not fall under the seventy-two sects, just as the hypocrites, who hide disbelief while outwardly showing Islam, are not included either, since they are zindiqs.

Others from among the companions of Ahmad and others said instead that the Jahmiyyah are included among the seventy-two sects, and they made the foundations of innovation five instead” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 3/350).

So Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, in this text, mentioned the statements of the imams about the takfir of the Jahmiyyah and who supported the view of Ibn al Mubarak. Then he mentioned the underlying issue, which is the takfir of the people of innovation. He noted the scholarly disagreement in this matter.

Then he said: “What has been transmitted from the Salaf and the imams is that they declared the pure Jahmiyyah to be disbelievers. These are the ones who denied the attributes, and the reality of their view is that Allah does not speak, is not seen, is not separate from creation, has no knowledge, no power, no hearing, no sight, no life. Rather, the Quran is created, and the people of Paradise will not see Him, just as the people of the Fire will not see Him, and similar statements like these” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 3/352).

So Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, confirms that the ones upon whom the ruling of takfir was applied were the pure Jahmiyyah. He listed their beliefs, some of which are clearly opposed by the Ashʿaris. Then he, may Allah have mercy on him, explained the speech of the Jahmiyyah and their ruling, and also the ruling on those who followed and imitated them. This applies to the Ashʿaris even if they did not adopt all the views of the Jahmiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah clarified the ruling on such people, saying:

“As such, among the people of innovation are those who are hypocrites and zindiqs, and these are disbelievers. This is common among the Rawafid and the Jahmiyyah, since many of their leaders were hypocrites and zindiqs. The first one to invent Rafidism was a hypocrite. Similarly, Jahmism originated from hypocrisy and zandaqah…

Among the people of innovation [which includes the Jahmiyyah in the general sense, since he previously included them among the innovators] are those who have iman inwardly and outwardly but are ignorant and unjust, and so they made mistakes in some aspects of the Sunnah. Such a person is not a disbeliever or a hypocrite. He may commit injustice or oppression and be sinful or corrupt, or he may be mistaken and excused due to interpretation and his mistake may be forgiven” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 3/353–354).

As for the mistakes of some of the Jahmiyyah in the general sense, especially those who came after the time of Ibn al Mubarak or those who followed them, Ibn Taymiyyah’s words about them will be mentioned in point five.

General rulings are not the same as specific rulings

This issue is one of the greatest areas in which mistakes occur when judging others. The imams of Ahl al Sunnah explained this issue thoroughly. They clarified that Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah often state general rulings of kufr and takfir, and such statements are general and not intended to apply to every individual.

Sometimes the ruling applies to the statement or action, but that does not automatically apply to the person who said or did it, unless the conditions are met and the obstacles are absent. This principle is well known and widespread among the scholars of Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah.

One of the clearest in explaining this was Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him. He said:

“The foundational principle is that a statement which is kufr according to the Book, the Sunnah, and consensus is declared as such generally, as supported by the evidences. Iman is one of the rulings received from Allah and His messenger. People do not judge such matters based on their own suspicions and desires. We are not to judge every person who says such a statement as a disbeliever unless the conditions of takfir are established in his case and the preventatives are absent.

An example is someone who says that wine or riba is halal because he is new to Islam or was raised in a remote desert area or heard something and denied it without realising that it is from the Quran or the hadith of the messenger of Allah ﷺ. Some of the Salaf rejected certain things until it was proven to them that the Prophet ﷺ had said it.

The companions too used to doubt matters such as seeing Allah until they asked the Prophet ﷺ. Or like the man who said, ‘When I die, crush me and scatter my ashes in the sea so that I might be lost from Allah’ and other such things.

Such people are not declared disbelievers until the proof of the message is established against them, as Allah said: ‘so that the people will have no argument against Allah after the messengers’ (al Nisa: 165). Allah has pardoned this ummah for mistakes and forgetfulness. We have elaborated on these principles elsewhere. A fatwa cannot expand on it more than this. Allah knows best” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 35/165–166).

As for the Jahmiyyah in particular, we find that Ibn al Mubarak declared the group as a whole to be disbelievers. But Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, and other scholars, including Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, made it clear that the takfir of the Jahmiyyah does not mean the takfir of every individual among them. It must also be noted that in some of the texts of Imam Ahmad, the term “Jahmiyyah” refers to the Muʿtazilah.

Some might bring these texts as evidence that not all the Jahmiyyah were declared disbelievers, but that is not necessary. A text must be read with its historical context and the people the author intended by his words. So even if we say that the Salaf declared the pure Jahmiyyah to be disbelievers, those who were later associated with them, like the Muʿtazilah and the Ashʿaris, were not given the same ruling by the imams of the Salaf.

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said, describing the practice of Imam Ahmad and his position:

“These views are kufr. But confirming takfir upon a specific individual depends on the establishment of the proof whose rejection is what makes one a disbeliever. Even if the statement of takfir is applied generally to the one who says such things, this is like the general statements of warning (waʿid), while applying the ruling of warning to a specific person depends on the presence of conditions and absence of obstacles.

That is why the imams used general takfir statements but did not apply the judgement of kufr to every individual who said such words. Those who were tested and pressured to say that the Quran was created, and who were punished with prison, beatings, threats, or even declared disbelievers by others, were not themselves declared disbelievers by the imams. The most well known of these imams is Imam Ahmad. His speech about the takfir of the Jahmiyyah is well known, along with his treatment of those who tested him, imprisoned him, and beat him”

(Bughyat al-Murtad fi al-Radd ʿala al-Mutafalsifah wa al-Qaramitah wa al-Batiniyyah, p. 353–354).

He also said: “Most of the seekers of knowledge and religion have no intention but the clear truth. But in this matter there are many doubts and statements, and many forms of misguidance have taken hold of people’s hearts.

So it has reached the point that a view which no one who has been given knowledge and faith doubts to be in clear opposition to the Quran and the evidence is seen by many prominent figures as being pure knowledge and iman.

In fact, they do not doubt that it follows sound reason and observation, and they never think it opposes clear proofs. That is why I used to say to their prominent figures: ‘If I were to agree with you in what you are saying, I would become a disbeliever knowingly, because I know this is clear kufr, but you are not disbelievers because you are ignorant of the realities of the religion.’

For this reason, the Salaf and the imams declared the Jahmiyyah disbelievers generally, but when it came to specific individuals, they would pray for them and seek forgiveness for them, because they did not know the straight path.

Knowledge and iman may be apparent to some people but hidden from others, and in some times and places but not others, depending on how clearly the religion of the messengers appears” (Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah , 1/9–10).

Here, he attributes to the Salaf that they declared the Jahmiyyah disbelievers in general, but withheld judgement on individuals. He mentions this about Imam Ahmad in a very clear and direct passage, which I will quote in full due to its importance. Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said, clarifying the words of the imams and Imam Ahmad in particular about those who said the Quran is created, and the scholarly disagreement about declaring such individuals disbelievers:

“The reason for this disagreement is the conflict between two sets of evidence. They saw evidences that required applying the rulings of kufr to such people.

But they also saw in those same individuals signs of iman that made it impossible to believe they were disbelievers. So the two evidences conflicted. In reality, what happened with them in understanding the general statements of the imams is what happened with earlier scholars in understanding the general statements of the Lawgiver.

Whenever they saw the imams say, ‘Whoever says such and such is a disbeliever,’ they assumed the statement applied to every individual who said it. But they did not consider that takfir has conditions and obstacles that may not be present in a given case. Declaring a view to be kufr does not mean that every person who holds that view is a disbeliever, unless the conditions are met and the obstacles are absent.

This is proven by the fact that Imam Ahmad and the majority of imams who made these general declarations did not actually declare most of those who said such statements to be disbelievers. Imam Ahmad himself dealt directly with the Jahmiyyah who called him to say the Quran was created, denied the attributes, tested him and the other scholars of his time, and persecuted the believers who did not agree with their Jahmi views.

They beat, imprisoned, executed, dismissed from positions, cut off livelihoods, rejected testimonies, and refused to rescue them from enemies. Many of those in authority were Jahmiyyah, judges and governors.

They would declare disbelievers anyone who was not a Jahmi and did not agree with denying the attributes, like the claim that the Quran is created. They treated such people like disbelievers, not appointing them, not rescuing them from enemies, not giving them anything from the treasury, not accepting their testimony, fatwas, or narrations.

They tested people when appointing them, accepting testimony, or ransoming captives. Whoever affirmed the creation of the Quran was judged to be a believer. Whoever did not was judged not to be from the people of iman. And anyone who called to something other than Jahmism was killed, beaten, or imprisoned.

It is known that this was the most extreme level of Jahmism, because calling to a view is more severe than merely saying it, and rewarding those who say it and punishing those who reject it is more severe than merely calling to it.

Punishing someone with death is even more severe than punishing them with beating. Yet Imam Ahmad still prayed for the caliph and others who beat and imprisoned him. He sought forgiveness for them and pardoned them for what they had done to him in terms of oppression and calling him to a statement which is kufr.

If they were apostates, it would not be permissible to pray for them, because praying for disbelievers is forbidden by the Book, the Sunnah, and consensus.

These statements and actions from him and other imams clearly show that they did not declare specific individuals from the Jahmiyyah who said the Quran is created or that Allah will not be seen in the afterlife to be disbelievers. It is reported from Ahmad that he did declare some individuals to be disbelievers. If there are two different reports from him on this issue, it requires investigation.

Or the matter may be clarified by saying: whoever he declared a disbeliever by name, that was because the evidence had established that the conditions for takfir were fulfilled and the obstacles absent in his case. And whoever he did not declare a disbeliever by name, that was because those conditions were not fulfilled in his case. This is despite the fact that he made a general statement declaring the belief to be kufr” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 12/487–489).

So is there a clearer text than this one? Especially when we take into account that the term Jahmiyyah here may refer to the Muʿtazilah, who were the ones involved in the trials and debates with Imam Ahmad. Regardless of whether the intended group were the pure Jahmiyyah or the Muʿtazilah, the point we are seeking to prove remains firmly established: general takfir of the Jahmiyyah, or of a statement or action, does not apply to individuals unless the conditions are fulfilled and the barriers removed.

This is the same principle followed by Ibn Taymiyyah, for he said regarding the Jahmiyyah he debated, who were not from the laypeople of the Jahmiyyah: “That is why I used to say to the Jahmiyyah among the hululiyyah and nufat who denied that Allah is above the Throne when their trial occurred, ‘If I agreed with you, I would be a deliberate disbeliever, because I know that your view is disbelief.

But as for you, I do not declare you disbelievers, because you are ignorant.’ This was my speech to their scholars, judges, elders and leaders” (al-Istighathah fi al-Radd ʿala al-Bakri, p. 253).

The Jahmiyyah here are some of the Ashʿaris, not the pure Jahmiyyah, and this clearly supports our point.

In summary: the texts of takfir for the Jahmiyyah refer to the early Jahmiyyah, the pure Jahmiyyah. Even then, general and unrestricted texts do not apply to specific individuals without qualification.

No judgement is passed based on implications unless someone adopts them

The point mentioned earlier, that general texts do not apply to individuals, is a principle well known in the methodology of the Salaf and not hidden from these contemporary claimants. However, they argue that contemporary Ashʿaris have adopted the same creed as the early Jahmiyyah and thus deserve the same ruling.

This is also incorrect. The contemporary claimants have equated the Ashʿaris with the Jahmiyyah in absolute terms, which is false. The general name Jahmiyyah includes them, no doubt, for the Salaf did use the term Jahmiyyah for the early Jahmiyyah, the Muʿtazilah, and the Ashʿaris. But this does not mean that they are all equal in ruling. We have already clarified the importance of knowing the historical context of the text that refers to the Jahmiyyah in order to understand who is meant. It is invalid to apply the ruling of one group to another.

Some of the issues in which the contemporary claimants believe the Ashʿaris agreed with the Jahmiyyah are in fact consequences or implications that the Ashʿaris themselves do not affirm. In any case, Ibn Taymiyyah in a previously quoted passage spoke of the pure Jahmiyyah, saying: “What has been transmitted from the Salaf and the imams is that they declared the pure Jahmiyyah disbelievers.

These are the ones who denied the attributes, and the reality of their view is that Allah does not speak, is not seen, is not separate from creation, has no knowledge, no power, no hearing, no sight, no life. Rather, the Quran is created, and the people of Paradise will not see Him, just as the people of the Fire will not see Him, and similar statements like these” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 3/352).

So merely resembling the Jahmiyyah in a single attribute does not equate to full agreement. Even if we find that the Ashʿaris adopt some of the views of the Jahmiyyah, the ruling upon them remains general and does not extend to individuals.

We have already discussed the disagreement among the imams such as Ahmad regarding the takfir of those who said that the Quran is created, and that general takfir cannot be applied to individuals unless the conditions are met and the obstacles removed.

That is why Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned the Jahmiyyah and the criticisms against them, and then spoke about those who follow them.

This applies to the Ashʿaris. He said: “Their statements [the Jahmiyyah’s] are gravely erroneous for three reasons. First: the texts from the Book, the Sunnah, and consensus that contradict them are very many and well known, and they only reject them through distortion.

Second: the reality of their statements is the nullification of the Creator, although some of them may not know that their statement leads to nullifying the Creator. Just as the foundation of faith is to affirm Allah, the foundation of disbelief is to deny Allah. Third: they oppose what all religions and sound natural instincts agree upon. Still, many of their statements are hidden from many believers, who may think that the truth lies with them because of the doubts they raise

These believers still have faith in Allah and His messenger inwardly and outwardly, but the matter became confusing to them, just as other innovators were confused. Such people are definitely not disbelievers. Some may be sinful wrongdoers. Others may be mistaken and excused. Others may possess iman and taqwa to such a degree that they are considered awliya of Allah in proportion to their iman and taqwa” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 3/354).

So whoever holds views similar to those of the Jahmiyyah is like any person who commits an innovation or a statement of kufr. We examine his situation, his level of ignorance, whether the proof has been established against him, and all other known conditions and barriers for takfir.

Establishing the proof

Despite all that has been mentioned, these contemporary claimants still argue that the views of the Ashʿaris are statements of kufr, and that while they do not declare them disbelievers except after the proof has been established, they claim that this proof has already been established upon every individual Ashʿari today due to the widespread availability of knowledge. Therefore, they argue, we can declare them all disbelievers by name.

This argument cannot be used to declare all Ashʿaris disbelievers by name. It is based on the assumption that since we live in an age where books are widely available, then the proof must have reached them.

But this is not necessarily true. The establishment of the proof varies by time and place. In fact, the further we move away from the light of prophethood and the era of revelation, the more widespread the innovations become, and the harder it becomes to remove and refute them.

This is not due to the clarity of the message itself, but due to the circumstances affecting individuals that distract them from the truth, such as interpretation, doubt, or ignorance that is not due to stubborn rejection, and also the conditions and methods by which they seek knowledge which affect how they understand the texts.

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “A believer whose faith is certain may err in some theoretical or doctrinal matters and be forgiven for that error, just as he is forgiven for practical mistakes. The warning of punishment for kufr does not apply to a specific person until Allah’s proof, sent through His messengers, has been established against him, as He said: ‘And We never punish until We send a messenger’ (al-Isra: 15).

The places and times in which the signs of prophethood are hidden are not the same as those in which they are visible. If someone in such a place denies what the Prophet brought due to error, he does not have the same ruling as someone who does so in a place where the signs of prophethood are clearly manifest”

(Bughyat al-Murtad, p. 311).

The discussion about establishing the proof is lengthy, but before applying takfir to an individual, the following must be confirmed:

First: that the matter is clearly kufr, plainly so.

Second: that the person knows that what he said is kufr, or at least forbidden according to some scholars, based on clear and evident proof, and that he understands it properly.

Third: that the barriers to takfir are absent, especially interpretation and ignorance.

This is also supported by the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, when explaining the view of Imam Ahmad, showing its importance. He said: “These statements and actions from him and other imams clearly show that they did not declare specific individuals from the Jahmiyyah who said the Quran is created or that Allah will not be seen in the afterlife to be disbelievers. It is reported from Ahmad that he did declare some individuals to be disbelievers.

If there are two different reports from him on this issue, it requires investigation. Or the matter may be clarified by saying: whoever he declared a disbeliever by name, that was because the evidence had established that the conditions for takfir were fulfilled and the obstacles absent in his case. And whoever he did not declare a disbeliever by name, that was because those conditions were not fulfilled in his case.

This is despite the fact that he made a general statement declaring the belief to be kufr” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 12/487–489).

Translation: The reason for this disagreement is the conflict between evidences. They see evidences that require applying the rulings of disbelief to these people, yet they also see in some of the individuals who made such statements signs of faith that make it impossible for them to be disbelievers.

So, the two evidences seem to contradict one another in their minds. In reality, what happened to them regarding the general expressions in the words of the imams is the same as what happened to the early generations regarding the general expressions in the texts of the Sharia.

Whenever they heard the imams say, “Whoever says such and such is a disbeliever,” the listener assumed that this wording includes everyone who says it. But they did not reflect on the fact that takfir has conditions and preventatives which may not apply to a specific individual, and that general takfir does not necessarily entail the takfir of a specific person.

Unless the conditions are fulfilled and the preventatives are absent. This is shown by the fact that Imam Ahmad and the majority of the imams who made such general statements did not declare most of those who said those words specifically to be disbelievers.

(Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 12/487–489).

The same applies to the Jahmiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Ahmad did not declare individual Jahmiyyah disbelievers, nor did he declare everyone who said he was a Jahmi a disbeliever, nor everyone who agreed with the Jahmiyyah in some of their innovations.

He prayed behind Jahmiyyah who called others to their views, tested people, and punished those who disagreed with harsh punishments. Ahmad did not declare them disbelievers, nor did others like him. He believed in their iman and imamate.

He prayed for them and considered it valid to pray behind them, to perform hajj and jihad with them, and he forbade rebellion against them, just as he would for other leaders of that type. At the same time, he rejected the false views they introduced, views that were great kufr even if they themselves did not realise it was kufr.

He rejected those views and opposed them as much as he could, combining obedience to Allah and His messenger in showing the Sunnah and the religion, and refuting the innovations of the Jahmiyyah, with preserving the rights of the believers among the leaders and the general public, even if they were ignorant innovators or sinful oppressors” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, 7/507).

Ibn Taymiyyah himself, when speaking about the Jahmiyyah among the Ashʿaris, said: “That is why I used to say to their prominent figures: ‘If I were to agree with you in what you are saying, I would be a deliberate disbeliever, because I know that this is clear kufr. But you are not disbelievers because you are ignorant of the realities of the religion.’

For this reason, the Salaf and the imams declared the Jahmiyyah disbelievers in general and unrestricted terms. As for individuals among them, they would pray for them and seek forgiveness for them, because they did not know the straight path. Knowledge and iman may be clear to some people and hidden to others, and this varies by time and place depending on how manifest the religion of the messengers is” (Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah, 1/10).

So Ibn Taymiyyah labelled the Ashʿaris as Jahmiyyah and linked them to Jahmism, yet he clarified that he did not declare them disbelievers due to their ignorance. Thus, simply labelling the Ashʿaris as Jahmiyyah does not necessitate declaring them disbelievers, contrary to what some of the contemporary claimants argue.

Seventh: False consequences

Whoever takes some of the Salaf’s texts about the takfir of the Jahmiyyah in an unrestricted manner and insists on affirming the reality of that statement without regard to the conditions, preventatives, or the differences between the Ashʿaris and the pure Jahmiyyah, will end up having to declare a large number of the scholars of Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah as disbelievers, not just the Ashʿaris.

That is because there are texts from the Salaf that declare takfir upon the Jahmiyyah, or upon those who said the Quran is created, and even upon those who do not declare such people disbelievers or who doubt their disbelief.

For example, in al-Sunnah by Abdullah ibn Ahmad: Ghiyath ibn Jaʿfar narrated to me, saying: I heard Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah say: “The Quran is the speech of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. Whoever says it is created is a disbeliever. And whoever doubts his disbelief is also a disbeliever” (al-Sunnah, 1/112).

But we have already seen that Ibn Taymiyyah did not declare the Ashʿaris disbelievers, and this is found clearly in his texts. Nor did many other leading scholars of the early or later generations. Therefore, these claimants must also declare Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al Qayyim, and other scholars from Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah to be disbelievers.

In fact, they would also have to declare the Permanent Committee for Fatwa in Saudi Arabia, along with Ibn Baz and Ibn ʿUthaymin, as disbelievers, for all of them have explicit statements that they do not declare the Ashʿaris disbelievers (See: the official website of Ibn Baz, fatwa titled: “Clarifying the sect of the Ashʿaris”, and Fatwas of the Permanent Committee, 3/220, with members including Abdullah ibn Qaʿud, Abdullah ibn Ghdhayyan, Abdul Razzaq ʿAfifi, and Abdul Aziz ibn Baz, may Allah have mercy on them).

That is because the very texts these contemporaries rely on for declaring the Jahmiyyah disbelievers also include in them takfir of those who do not declare them disbelievers.

So these people took the first part of the text generally and applied it to individuals, saying: “The Jahmiyyah are all disbelievers, and the Ashʿaris are among them,” and they must also accept the second part of the text, which is takfir of those who do not declare them disbelievers. But we have already seen that the great imams, both from the early and later generations, did not declare them disbelievers.

Therefore, not declaring those scholars disbelievers while still applying general takfir to the Ashʿaris is a clear error in applying and understanding the scholars’ words.

Finally, these are brief points I have covered on the issue of Jahmism in relation to the Ashʿaris and declaring them disbelievers based on that. Takfir and matters related to it open a door of great evil if not restricted by the firm guidance of the Sharia and the teachings of the righteous Salaf.

We must understand the statements of our scholars in light of how other scholars have explained them. We understand the speech of Ibn al Mubarak and others as clarified and detailed by Ibn Taymiyyah and other scholars, that what was meant were the pure Jahmiyyah. This is the reality, as their words were in the second century.

Therefore, it is not correct to apply what was said about the pure Jahmiyyah to the Ashʿaris merely because they share some views. Every group has its own specific ruling according to what the Salaf ruled regarding them.

Even then, individuals have their own ruling, not only based on their belief but also considering their adherence to the Quran and Sunnah, their defence of the truth, their methodology in deriving rulings, and other considerations found throughout the books of Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah.

Ibn Taymiyyah says that some scholars had good intentions and did great things for Islam, but they were influenced by mistaken ideas from the Muʿtazilah.

Because of that, they ended up saying things that went against the sunnah, even if they did not mean to. Some people praise them for their good deeds, others blame them for their mistakes. The truth is in the middle.

Everyone makes mistakes, and Allah forgives those who try to follow the truth. People should not attack others harshly for mistakes they also fall into. Many later scholars became confused and ended up contradicting themselves because they were far from the light of the Prophet’s guidance.

Translation: Abu Dharr had knowledge, religion, understanding of hadith and the sunnah, and was known for narrating from al-Bukhari’s three teachers and other praiseworthy attributes and virtues. He had travelled to Baghdad from Herat, and adopted the approach of Ibn al-Baqillani (Ashʿari), then carried it to the Haram. Many scholars and religious people spoke against him and his approach, like Abu Nasr as-Sijzi (Athari), Abu al-Qasim Saad ibn Ali az-Zanjani (Athari), and others like them among the great people of knowledge and religion, in ways that are not appropriate to mention here.

He was among those who gave preference to the approach of as-Subghi and ath-Thaqafi over the approach of Ibn Khuzaymah (Athari) and others among the hadith scholars.

The people of the West used to perform hajj and would meet him, take hadith from him and adopt this approach from him. He would guide them to its foundation, and some of them would then travel to the East, like Abu al-Walid al-Baji (Maliki Ashʿari), who adopted the approach of Abu Jaʿfar as-Samnani al-Hanafi (Ashʿari), the companion of al-Qadi Abu Bakr (Ibn al-Baqillani, Ashʿari). After him al-Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi (Maliki Ashʿari) travelled and adopted the approach of Abu al-Maʿali (al-Juwayni, Ashʿari) in the book al-Irshad.

Then, each of these individuals had notable efforts in Islam, praiseworthy good deeds, and contributions in refuting many of the people of heresy and innovation, and in defending many of the people of the sunnah and the religion, which is not hidden from anyone who knows their conditions and speaks about them with knowledge, truthfulness, fairness and justice.

However, because this foundational idea which they adopted originally came from the Muʿtazilah, and they were intelligent and virtuous, they felt obligated to continue following its implications and required consequences.

This led them to positions that the Muslims among the people of knowledge and religion rejected. As a result, the people became divided: some praised them because of their virtues and good deeds, and others criticised them because of the innovations and falsehoods found in their words. The best stance is the middle one.

This is not limited to them, rather this has happened to many groups among the people of knowledge and religion.

Allah accepts good deeds from all His believing servants and overlooks their mistakes. “Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith, and do not place in our hearts any hatred towards those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are kind and merciful” (al-Hashr: 10).

There is no doubt that whoever sincerely strives to seek the truth and the religion from the Messenger, peace be upon him, and makes a mistake in some part of that, Allah will forgive his mistake, fulfilling the supplication which Allah accepted from His Prophet and the believers, when they said: “Our Lord, do not take us to account if we forget or make a mistake” (al-Baqara: 286).

But whoever follows his opinion and desires, and then begins to attack others for the mistakes they made while striving and thinking they were right, even if their mistake led them to an innovation that opposes the sunnah, then he himself is also accountable for the same or worse or lesser than that, in someone whom he respects among his own companions.

Rarely is anyone among the later generations free from this kind of fault, due to the widespread confusion and inconsistency, and due to people being far from the light of Prophethood and the sun of the message, which is what brings guidance and correctness and removes doubt and uncertainty from the hearts.

For this reason, you find many of the later scholars from various groups contradicting themselves in these foundational matters and their consequences. They say something that agrees with the sunnah, then deny what necessarily follows from it without realising that it is one of its consequences.

They say what contradicts it, without realising that it contradicts it. They also affirm the necessary consequences of the opposing view, which contradicts what they themselves affirmed from the sunnah. They may even declare a person disbeliever for saying the opposing view and its consequences. So the result of their speech is that they say something, then declare disbeliever the one who says it. This happens with many of them even in the same moment, because they are unaware of the contradiction between the two statements. It also happens at different times, due to the differences in their reasoning and striving.

Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql wa-l-naql By Ibn Taymiyyah (2/101-104)

Ibn Taymiyyah says although the Ashʿaris and Kullabis opposed the Jahmiyyah on some clear issues like the creation of the Quran and denial of Allah’s vision, they still accepted core philosophical foundations of Jahmism through their use of kalam, which the Salaf condemned.

While they are closer to Ahl al Sunnah than other sects like the Muʿtazilah and Rafidah, they are still from the people of innovation due to their reliance on kalam and inherited errors from the Jahmiyyah.

Translation: It was said: The reason is that the Jahmiyyah were openly claiming that the Quran was created and they were denying the vision of Allah, but they were not openly denying that Allah is above as was mentioned before.

So those who debated them were from the philosophers who affirmed the attributes, like Abu Saeed ibn Kullab and Abu al Hasan al Ashari and their companions. Their opposition to the Jahmiyyah became apparent in these two matters due to the obvious disagreement about them, which revealed their disagreement in other hidden issues as well. Despite this, those men also disagreed with the Jahmiyyah regarding their denial that Allah is above the Throne, as was already mentioned from their own words.

However, they did not bring in their debates anything that would cut off the root of Jahmism and destroy it completely. Rather, they conceded to them some of the foundational principles upon which Jahmism was built. Their discussions about the origination of the universe and their speech about bodies and attributes are among the forms of kalam that the imams and the Salaf condemned.

Muhammad ibn Khuwazmindad said: The people of innovation and desires according to Malik and his companions are the people of kalam. Every mutakallim in Islam is from the people of innovation and desires, whether Ashari or not.

Ibn Khuzaymah and others mentioned that Imam Ahmad used to warn against what was introduced by Abdullah ibn Saeed ibn Kullab and his companions like al Harith, because of what they knew in their speech of corrupt issues and proofs.

Even though their speech contained correct proofs and agreement with the Sunnah in a way not found in most other groups, they are still the closest of the groups of the people of kalam to the Sunnah and the Jamaah and to hadith.

They are counted among Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah when compared to groups like the Muʿtazilah, the Rafidah and those like them. In lands where the innovators are the Muʿtazilah, the Rafidah and those like them, then these people are considered to be Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah.

Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah By Ibn Taymiyyah (3/535-538)

Ibn Taymiyyah’s points out that Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, despite his intelligence, sincerity, and skill in writing, did not truly grasp the path of the elect among the Muslims, the people of hadith, faith, and prophetic inheritance.

He lacked deep knowledge of hadith and their meanings, which led him to rely on fabricated or weak reports, even though sound and sufficient narrations existed.

His foundational error was treating prophethood as secondary to philosophical reasoning, which caused him to misjudge the correct path brought by the Prophet ﷺ and made him vulnerable to transmitting falsehoods, even unintentionally.

Translation: As for the path of the elect among the Muslims, the people of prophetic inheritance and messengership succession, the ones who follow the Sunnah outwardly and inwardly, those who draw from the light of prophethood, the people of knowledge and faith, who believe that what was sent down to Muhammad is the truth from their Lord, and in whose hearts Allah has cast a light by which they see and are certain of the realities brought by the messenger ﷺ,

Abu Hamid (Al Ghazali) did not reach the level of knowing them or knowing their path. Even if he sometimes alluded to them in general, he did not grasp the details. He longed for their way because he had little knowledge of hadith and reports and the meanings they contain. He used to say, “My share of hadith is meagre,” as was reported from him by Abu Bakr ibn al Arabi who heard it directly from him.

That is why in his books there are many fabricated and falsely attributed reports, even though those same topics contain authentic hadiths which are sufficient and healing. Among such examples is the report he transmitted from Ahmad, which he took from an unknown person whose identity is not known.

That unknown person transmitted it in disconnected form from Ahmad. Anyone who truly knows Ahmad and his words would not differ in recognising that this is a lie and slander against him. The authentic and reliable texts transmitted from Ahmad in mass transmission refute this nonsense that was quoted from him.

In fact, if Abu Hamid was quoting from the Prophet ﷺ and from the companions and the tabiʿin fabrications too numerous to count except by Allah, then how much more prone would he be to transmit falsehoods about someone like Ahmad?

He was not someone who deliberately lied, for he was too noble in status for that. He was among the most intelligent of people, most eager in seeking knowledge, and most persistent in examining matters. His intentions were among the most sincere in seeking the truth.

He had many eloquent and powerful expressions that were widely accepted, and his skill in organisation and arrangement made him among the best of authors. However, because he did not reach the correct paths that the messenger ﷺ came with, he would transmit according to what had reached him, especially while holding to that corrupt foundational principle, which was treating prophethood as a branch dependent on something else.

Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah (6/125-127)

Translation: Q: Are the Ashʿaris from Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah or not, and do we judge them by their creed to be disbelievers?

Shayk Bin Baz said: The Ashʿaris are from Ahl al Sunnah in most matters, but they are not from them when it comes to interpreting the attributes. They are not disbelievers. Among them are imams, scholars and righteous people, but they made mistakes in interpreting some of the attributes. So they opposed Ahl al Sunnah in issues including their interpretation of most of the attributes, and they were wrong in those interpretations.

What Ahl al Sunnah wa al Jamaah hold is to pass on the verses and hadiths about the attributes as they came, without interpreting them, denying them, distorting them or comparing them to creation. Rather, they are passed on as they came, with belief that they are true and that they are real attributes of Allah in a manner befitting Him, the Mighty and Majestic.

He is not like His creation in any way. As Allah said: “There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing” (al Shura: 11), and He said: “And there is none equal to Him” (al Ikhlas: 4).

Al Majmu Fatawa By Bin Baz (28/256)

Question 7 from Fatwa no. 6606:

Question: What is the ruling on someone who died upon Ashʿari tawheed, before reaching an understanding of tawheed of names and attributes, and never heard of it from anyone nor understood it, while affirming tawheed of lordship and worship and no one alerted him to this issue so that he would reject it? Does he have an excuse or not?

Answer: His case is with Allah, the Exalted, because the Ashʿaris are not disbelievers. They only made mistakes in their interpretation of some of the attributes.

Member: Abdullah ibn Qaʿud
Member: Abdullah ibn Ghdhayyan
Deputy Head of the Committee: Abdul Razzaq ʿAfifi
Head: Abdul Aziz ibn Abdullah ibn Baz

The Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Fatwa (3/220)