Reponse to the post: "Asharis are the ahfāad of Aristotle."
--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--
This is in response to the Haddaadi, Ecstatic_Refuse3278...
This response is divided into three connected parts: how Ahlus-Sunnah dealt with Ahlul-Kalaam and distinguished between different levels of influence and affiliation, how the ambiguous terms "movement" and "change" were explained by ibn Taymiyyah, and how the statements of imam an-Nawawi concerning Allah's Attributes and Divine will were misrepresented. These matters require some detail because they involve several creedal principles, distinctions, and quotations that cannot be fairly reduced to isolated snippets.
Ahlus-Sunnah in dealing with Ahlul-Kalaam and their levels
Ahlus-Sunnah have dealt with the misguided sects of Ahlul-Kalaam before. They also differentiated between the early and later adherents of these sects, especially the Ashaa'irah, categorizing them into three levels:
- The level of the mutakallimeen who adhere to the madhhab.
- The intermediate level: At this level, the scholar does taqleed of the mutakallimeen in terms of what they concluded, even if he himself is not a profound mutakallim, but is moderate.
- The level of the muqallideen: This is the level of general affiliation, in terms of the Ash'ariyyah being a banner for Ahlus-Sunnah.
This distinction is important, and this is not to undermine the danger and harm of 'Ilm al-Kalaam, how grave its conclusions are, and what it can lead to. However, influence, as stated, has its levels. Just as knowledge varies among Ahlus-Sunnah, it is not inconceivable that this also applies to those influenced by 'Ilm al-Kalaam.
Concerning the third level, this is not said to justify general affiliation, as we have previously established that it is an innovation to ascribe oneself as "Ash'ari" and is therefore haram. Rather, this is only to showcase the differences in levels of affiliation or adherence to the Ash'ariyyah sect, just as we say that the Zaydiyyah, despite being a branch of the Shee'ah sect, are not on the same level as the Raafidhah.
One of the best books dealing with the Ashaa'irah and Maaturidiyyah, why they are considered misguided sects, and how they differ from the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah is this book:
Anyone who reads this will notice a great difference between how Ahlus-Sunnah addresses them and how unjust, deceptive, and manipulative the Haddaadiyyah have been in their ardent desire to consider the Ashaa'irah disbelievers. They have no principles in takfeer and no scholarly precedence whatsoever. Rather, you will find them speaking for themselves, foregoing and ignoring the contemporary scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.
Yet again, they only take snippets and project them as being far worse, although the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah considered the intentions of the scholars, even when they were gravely mistaken, and praised their efforts in service of the Sunnah.
Ignorant arguments of the Haddaadi
The Haddaadi wrote:
From the beliefs of the Asharis is that تحرك (movement) for Allah is محال (impossible) because if that was the case there has to be a محرك (mover) that moves Allah. تعالى عما قالت الأشعرية علوا كبيرا. This is wrong as Allah can do what he wills like he affirms to himself and we don’t limit Allah like they do. That’s why you’ll find the likes of nawawi āamidi others that will purposely go against the salaf in Allah doing الاستواء or Allah laughing or Allah revealing his saaq etc.
Rather they go further and say that Allah can’t change التغير what they mean is that Allah can’t at one point be angry then at another point boast about the action of his slave.
The Haddaadi argument is gravely mistaken, not because every part of it is completely invented, but because it takes a real 'aqeedah disagreement and presents it without the principles, distinctions, and precision explained by ibn Taymiyyah himself.
Ibn Taymiyyah did criticize the position that no voluntary action can subsist in Allah. He stated that, according to this position, Allah does not become pleased with someone after not being pleased with him, become angry after not being angry, rejoice over repentance after it occurs, or speak by His will and power. He attributed the origin of this position to the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and said that it later passed to the Kullaabiyyah, Ashaa'irah, Saalimiyyah, and some followers of the four imams. Therefore, the underlying 'aqeedah disagreement concerning voluntary actions is real.
However, the Haddaadi presentation immediately departs from ibn Taymiyyah's methodology by treating the words "movement" and "change" as though they have one obvious, undisputed meaning.
Ibn Taymiyyah began the entire discussion by saying:
وَقَبْلَ ذَلِكَ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُعْرَفَ أَنَّ لَفْظَ الْحَرَكَةِ وَالِانْتِقَالِ وَالتَّغَيُّرِ وَالتَّحَوُّلِ وَنَحْوَ ذَلِكَ أَلْفَاظٌ مُجْمَلَةٌ
"Before that, it should be understood that the terms 'movement', 'transition', 'change', 'transformation', and similar expressions are ambiguous terms."
This is the first principle the Haddaadi ignores. The word "movement" may refer to created spatial movement, in which a body leaves one place, vacates it, and occupies another. It may also be used more generally for action, transition, or the occurrence of voluntary acts. These meanings cannot be treated as identical.
Therefore, merely saying: "The Ash'aris say movement is impossible, but this is wrong because Allah does whatever He wills," is not a sufficient scholarly refutation. The Haddaadi has not defined what he means by "movement".
If he means created spatial movement, such as vacating one place, occupying another, or descending in the same manner that a human being descends from a rooftop, then ibn Taymiyyah himself explicitly rejected this and said that Allah must be declared free of it:
فَهَذَا بَاطِلٌ يَجِبُ تَنْزِيهُ الرَّبِّ عَنْهُ
"This is false, and the Lord must be declared free of it."
Ibn Taymiyyah stated that anyone who describes Allah's descent as movement and transition resembling the descent of a human being is certainly mistaken.
If, however, "movement" is intended in the broad sense of Allah acting by His will, coming, descending, being pleased, becoming angry, rejoicing over repentance, creating, and speaking when He wills, then the meaning must be discussed according to the revealed texts and in a manner befitting Allah. It does not follow that the ambiguous word "movement" must itself be unrestrictedly affirmed as one of the revealed descriptions of Allah.
In fact, ibn Taymiyyah stated that many from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Hadith considered the intended meaning correct but refused to use the word "movement" because no transmitted text had come with that wording. He then said:
وَالْقَوْلُ الْمَشْهُورُ عَنِ السَّلَفِ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ وَالْحَدِيثِ هُوَ الْإِقْرَارُ بِمَا وَرَدَ بِهِ الْكِتَابُ وَالسُّنَّةُ مِنْ أَنَّهُ يَأْتِي وَيَنْزِلُ
"The well-known position transmitted from the Salaf according to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Hadith is to affirm what has come in the Book and the Sunnah, such as that He comes and descends."
The well-known position was therefore to affirm the revealed expressions, not to make the unrestricted word "movement" a test of Sunnah.
Ibn Taymiyyah even mentioned a third position, adopted by many from Ahlul-Hadith, the fuqahaa', and the Sufis, including ibn Battah, which was to withhold from both affirming and negating the ambiguous word. These scholars affirmed the revealed actions but did not speak with unrestricted affirmation or negation concerning the term "movement".
This alone disproves the Haddaadi attempt to present the issue as a simple division:
"The Ashaa'irah deny movement, while Ahlus-Sunnah affirm movement."
Ibn Taymiyyah's own classification was far more complex. He said that all three positions existed among followers of the four imams, including followers of imam Ahmad. He listed Abu Ya'la, ibn 'Aqeel, ibn az-Zaaghooni, and ibnul-Jawzi among Hanbali scholars influenced by the first position. He also mentioned people from the Shaafi'ee, Maaliki, and Hanafi madhhabs. The matter was therefore not a crude division between "Ash'aris" on one side and every Sunni scholar on the other.
Likewise, calling the Ashaa'irah "the sons of Aristotle" does not replace evidence. Ibn Taymiyyah carefully distinguished between the terminology of the mutakallimeen and that of the philosophers. He explained that the followers of Aristotle restricted movement to bodies, while also describing the soul with a type of movement despite not considering it a body, which he identified as a contradiction. He did not simply reduce every Ash'ari argument to the statement, "Aristotle said it."
More significantly, ibn Taymiyyah himself reported that al-Ash'ari argued from Arabic usage that movement and its categories were not restricted exclusively to bodies. He mentioned expressions such as "fever came", "cold came", and "well-being came", although these are not independently moving bodies. This does not mean that al-Ash'ari affirmed every voluntary action in the manner affirmed by ibn Taymiyyah, but it demonstrates that the matter cannot honestly be summarized by the slogan that the Ash'aris merely copied one simple Aristotelian argument.
The treatment of imam an-Nawawi is also inaccurate. In the cited passage concerning Allah's laughter, an-Nawawi wrote:
قَالَ الْقَاضِي
"Al-Qaadi said."
The explanation that followed was the statement of al-Qaadi 'Iyaad, which an-Nawawi transmitted in his commentary. It is fair to criticize an-Nawawi for transmitting this ta'weel without rejecting it, but it is inaccurate to present every word as an-Nawawi's own original argument.
It is also unjustified to claim that an-Nawawi or al-Aamidi "purposely" went against the Salaf. A quotation showing that a scholar made ta'weel may demonstrate an error in his conclusion or methodology. It does not prove that he consciously intended to oppose the Salaf. The Haddaadi has moved from criticizing a statement to claiming knowledge of the scholar's intention without presenting any evidence for that accusation.
The same problem occurs when the Haddaadi says:
"They believe Allah cannot at one point be angry and then at another point boast about the action of His slave."
The precise criticism found in ibn Taymiyyah is that the first position denies the occurrence of voluntary actions subsisting in Allah, including becoming pleased, becoming angry, rejoicing over repentance, or speaking by His will. That is a genuine criticism of the Kullaabi and Ash'ari principle. However, the Haddaadi replaces ibn Taymiyyah's technical explanation with his own vague wording and then uses it to disparage particular imams without establishing exactly what each scholar believed.
The correct refutation is to say that Allah acts by His will and power and is described by what He and His Messenger affirmed, including coming, descent, pleasure, anger, laughter, love, and other authentic Attributes and actions, all in a manner befitting His Majesty. These are affirmed without tahreef, ta'teel, takyeef, or tamtheel.
At the same time, one does not affirm a created manner of movement, imagine that Allah vacates one place and occupies another, or liken His actions to those of created bodies. Nor does one turn ambiguous expressions invented in later 'aqeedah disputes into compulsory tests by which imams are judged.
Ibn Taymiyyah summarized the principle by saying that Allah is described with what He described Himself and with what His Messenger described Him, without exceeding the Qur'an and hadith. He also stated that Allah has real actions, while nothing resembles Him in His Essence, Attributes, or actions.
Therefore, the Haddaadi's false projection is merely a generalization. He has ignored the central principle that "movement" and "change" are ambiguous terms, presented one disputed expression as though it were the explicit terminology of the Salaf, failed to mention that many from Ahlul-Hadith withheld from using it, collapsed a complex disagreement into a simplistic distinction between the Ashaa'irah and Ahlus-Sunnah, misattributed the words of al-Qaadi 'Iyaad directly to an-Nawawi, and accused scholars of deliberately opposing the Salaf without evidence.
Ahlus-Sunnah may reject the errors of the Ashaa'irah concerning Allah's voluntary actions and their ta'weel of certain Attributes. However, a refutation must still be built upon knowledge, justice, precise attribution, and the distinctions established by the scholars. Distorting an opponent's position or attributing corrupt intentions to imams is not the methodology of ibn Taymiyyah, even when the 'aqeedah conclusion being criticized is genuinely mistaken.
Imam an-Nawawi's statement
The Haddaadi wrote "Nawawi from the necessity of his doctrines also believes Allah wills but here is the problem" then quoted from imam an-Nawawi.
The quotation from imam an-Nawawi is authentic, but the Haddaadi's explanation of it is gravely mistaken.
An-Nawawi said:
مَذْهَبُ أَهْلِ الْحَقِّ الْإِيمَانُ بِالْقَدَرِ وَإِثْبَاتُهُ، وَأَنَّ جَمِيعَ الْكَائِنَاتِ خَيْرَهَا وَشَرَّهَا بِقَضَاءِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَقَدَرِهِ، وَهُوَ مُرِيدٌ لَهَا كُلِّهَا، وَيَكْرَهُ الْمَعَاصِيَ مَعَ أَنَّهُ مُرِيدٌ لَهَا، لِحِكْمَةٍ يَعْلَمُهَا اللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى
"The position of the people of truth is belief in al-Qadar and its affirmation, and that all occurrences, their good and their evil, take place by Allah's decree and predestination. He wills all of them, and He hates sins despite willing them, due to a wisdom known to Allah, Glorified and Exalted."
(Source)
The first error is translating or explaining:
وَهُوَ مُرِيدٌ لَهَا كُلِّهَا
as though it necessarily means that Allah "wants", loves, or is pleased with all of these occurrences.
In this context, the accurate translation is:
"He wills all of them."
It concerns Allah's universal and decreed will, meaning that nothing occurs in His creation outside His will and decree. The English word "wants" can misleadingly suggest desire, love, or pleasure, which is precisely what the Arabic sentence itself denies concerning sins.
An-Nawawi immediately said:
وَيَكْرَهُ الْمَعَاصِيَ مَعَ أَنَّهُ مُرِيدٌ لَهَا
"He hates sins despite willing them."
The Haddaadi claims that an-Nawawi believed Allah must be pleased with both belief and disbelief because He wills both. Yet an-Nawawi explicitly stated that Allah hates sins despite willing their occurrence. The Haddaadi's interpretation therefore contradicts the very sentence he quoted.
This distinction is not something peculiar to an-Nawawi or the Ashaa'irah. It is expressly taught by contemporary scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.
Shaykh 'Abdul-'Aziz ibn Baaz said:
فَاللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ لَهُ إِرَادَتَانِ: قَدَرِيَّةٌ وَشَرْعِيَّةٌ
"Allah, Glorified is He, has two wills: a decreed will and a shar'i will."
He explained that these two wills come together regarding the obedient believer, whereas the sinner and disbeliever accord with Allah's universal will while opposing His shar'i will:
أَمَّا الْعَاصِي فَقَدْ وَافَقَ الْإِرَادَةَ الْكَوْنِيَّةَ، وَلَكِنَّهُ خَالَفَ الْإِرَادَةَ الشَّرْعِيَّةَ، وَالْأَمْرَ الشَّرْعِيَّ، وَهَكَذَا الْكَافِرُ
"As for the sinner, he has accorded with the universal will, but he has opposed the shar'i will and the shar'i command, and likewise the disbeliever."
(Source)
Shaykh ibn Baaz explained elsewhere:
الْإِرَادَةُ الشَّرْعِيَّةُ تُوَافِقُ الْأَمْرَ وَالرِّضَا وَالْمَحَبَّةَ
"The shar'i will corresponds with command, pleasure, and love."
As for the universal will, he said:
وَالْإِرَادَةُ الْكَوْنِيَّةُ بِمَعْنَى الْمَشِيئَةِ
"The universal will has the meaning of the Divine Will." He then explicitly stated:
أَرَادَ وَشَاءَ كَوْنًا مِنَ الْكَافِرِ أَنْ يَكْفُرَ، وَمِنَ الْعَاصِي أَنْ يَعْصِيَ، لِحِكْمَةٍ بَالِغَةٍ
"He universally willed and decreed that the disbeliever would disbelieve and that the sinner would sin, due to a profound wisdom."
(Source)
This is almost exactly the principle expressed in the sentence quoted from an-Nawawi: Allah wills the occurrence of sins within His universal decree while hating those sins.
Shaykh 'Abdul-'Aziz ar-Raajihi likewise said:
فَاللَّهُ تَعَالَى أَرَادَ الْكُفْرَ وَخَلَقَ الْمَعَاصِيَ، وَهُوَ لَا يُرِيدُهَا شَرْعًا وَلَا يُحِبُّهَا، وَيَكْرَهُ الْكُفْرَ وَالْكَافِرِينَ، وَلَكِنْ أَرَادَ وُقُوعَهَا لِمَا يَتَرَتَّبُ عَلَيْهَا مِنَ الْحِكَمِ
"Allah, Exalted is He, willed disbelief and created sins, while He does not will them shar'an or love them. He hates disbelief and the disbelievers, but He willed their occurrence because of the wisdoms resulting from them."
(Source)
Therefore, if the Haddaadi applies his own argument consistently, he would have to accuse shaykh ibn Baaz and shaykh 'Abdul-'Aziz ar-Raajihi of saying that Allah "wants" disbelief and sin in the same blameworthy sense he attributes to an-Nawawi. In reality, these scholars distinguish between Allah universally willing the occurrence of something and His loving, commanding, or being pleased with it. The Haddaadi has confused four separate matters:
-
Allah universally willing that something occur.
-
Allah commanding it shar'an.
-
Allah loving it.
-
Allah being pleased with it.
Ahlus-Sunnah distinguishes between them. Disbelief and sins occur by Allah's universal will and decree, but He does not command, love, or approve of them religiously. The Haddaadi's further claim that an-Nawawi only said this because he believed Allah "cannot change" is not found anywhere in the quoted passage.
The passage does not mention change, movement, a mover, or the impossibility of Allah becoming pleased with one person while being displeased with another. That explanation has been imposed upon the text without evidence.
If the Haddaadi wishes to establish an-Nawawi's position concerning voluntary Attributes or the Ash'ari principle concerning the subsistence of temporal actions in Allah, he must produce a separate and explicit quotation. He cannot insert that argument into a passage about al-Qadar that does not contain it.
The continuation omitted by the Haddaadi is also important. An-Nawawi proceeded to ask:
وَهَلْ يُقَالُ إِنَّهُ يَرْضَى الْمَعَاصِيَ وَيُحِبُّهَا؟
"Is it said that He is pleased with sins and loves them?"
He then reported two views among the mutakallimeen of his madhhab. One group refused to say that Allah loves or is pleased with sins, citing
وَلَا يَرْضَى لِعِبَادِهِ الْكُفْرَ
"He is not pleased with disbelief for His servants."
Another group equated will, love, and pleasure and consequently permitted that expression. An-Nawawi reported both positions in this passage, but he did not explicitly state that he personally selected the second view. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to take a view that he merely reports and present it as his established personal position without further evidence.
According to the distinction explained by the scholars cited above, the second reported view, which equates universal will with love and pleasure, is mistaken. Ahlus-Sunnah affirms both the universal will and the shar'i will. The universal will encompasses everything that occurs, while the shar'i will concerns what Allah commands, loves, and is pleased with.
The inaccurate and deceptive criticism is:
"An-Nawawi says Allah wants and is pleased with disbelief and belief because otherwise change would occur."
That conclusion is not stated in the passage, it contradicts an-Nawawi's explicit statement that Allah hates sins, and it would also condemn the statements of prominent scholars who teach that Allah universally wills the occurrence of disbelief and sin due to His wisdom while neither loving nor approving of them religiously.
The Haddaadi has therefore failed to understand the Arabic term "mureed", confused the universal will with love and pleasure, ignored the explicit words "He hates sins", omitted the continuation reporting two different views, and invented an explanation concerning "change" that is absent from the quotation.
The decisive point is that ibn Baaz himself said Allah universally willed the disbeliever's disbelief and the sinner's sin due to profound wisdom, while distinguishing this from His shar'i will, love, and pleasure.
Ignorance and misinterpretation as impediments to takfeer
The Haddaadi wrote:
The modajanah must realise that these aren't mere mistakes where one can just cite the hadith: "Indeed, Allah has pardoned my Ummah for mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they were compelled to do."
As I've explained elsewhere:
What did Ahlul-Kalaam say in this regard, such as the Ashaa'irah? They argue that the ordinary Muslims are incumbent to know matters of detailed evidences. (Source)
It should be noted that the Kalaamiyyah roots of this approach actually stem from the Mu'tazilah, unbeknownst to the Ahlul-Kalaam themselves. Unfortunately, some Ahlus-Sunnah, unaware of its Kalaamiyyah roots, repeat what al-Qaraafi was saying in terms of excuse of ignorance, as he said in Tanqeeh al-Fusool: "Therefore, Allah did not excuse him for ignorance in the foundations of the Deen by consensus." Similarly, al-Qaraafi wrote in his book al-Furooq: "The accountability for Tawheed and the absence of an excuse for ignorance regarding it falls under the category of unbearable accountability."!!
His statements give the impression that Allah has placed an overwhelming responsibility beyond human capacity, leaving no allowance for ignorance. However, this is not the position of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. According to the Shari'ah, there is an excuse for ignorance regarding the fundamentals of the Deen, and Allah does not hold people accountable for what they could not reasonably know. (Relevant)
The innovators, the false claimants as "Sunnis", such as the Haddaadiyyah, repeat this Mu'tazili, Zaydi, Ash'ari, Qadari, Khaariji, and Dhaahiri argument. Hence, any mistake in the branches of 'aqeedah, such as how the Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes of Allah are to be understood, claiming there is no excuse of ignorance in this!! Hence why they declare Ahlul-Kalaam as zanaadiqah or as disbelievers, unaware that they are declaring them on the basis of Mu'tazili and Ash'ari arguments!! (Source)
(Source)
Ahlus-Sunnah also recognizes that ignorance and misinterpretation may be excuses that prevent the takfeer of a specific individual, depending on the matter, the person's circumstances, and whether the proof has been established against him:
Therefore, the Haddaadi opposes past and contemporary scholars by ignoring these distinctions and applying takfeer without considering its recognized conditions and impediments. It is interesting that he has presented no scholarly precedence for this sweeping approach, except that such excesses were already refuted before he was even born. Alhamdulillah.
Posted Jul 11, 2026, 9:00 PM UTC