Classical Texts

The Creed of Al Tahawi – Translated by Shaykh Abu Adam

A Commentary on the Creed of Al Sanusi – Translated by Shaykh Abu Adam

14 Responses to Classical Texts

  1. From The Creed of Imam Tahawiyyah

    {We adhere to} the People of {the Sunnah and the
    Jamā’ah and avoid deviations, disagreement and
    division.}That is, we do not deviate from ijmā’, and
    do not disagree on issues that have different possible
    answers in a way that involves division and enmity.

  2. By “possible answer,” I mean that it falls within the realm of the sayings of Ahlu-s-Sunnah, and does not break Ijmaaˆ. See also the banner of this website for the quote of Al-Gahzaaliyy, which makes this clearer. Note that deviant opinions are in themselves divisive, and that refuting them is a duty by the order of the Prophet to stop disobedience by the hand if one is able, and if not, then by the tongue…

  3. Mo says:

    Shaykh, just as the great scholars came together to defeat the greeks with their own terminology and concepts, should contemporary Sunni scholars do the same with Modern Science or its conclusions today?

    But i do recall in some previous comments you mentioned they’re just old concepts attached to various observations that were defeated by kalam, but perhaps that was a specific argument. I was just wondering if there is a need to “modernise” usage of certain terminology, or perhaps introduce a way of raising a muslim’s awareness of our old kalam scholars in a modern context, especially for those educated muslims entering the scientific fields.

    Ramadan Mubarak btw, may Allah forgive you for your sins, reward you for your effort, increase you in your knowledge and bring you closer to Him.

    • Anything that would facilitate understanding is good, of course. However, it is a mistake to think that kalaam as a science branches out of science. It is the other way around. When we speak in kalaam about physical phenomena it is at a very high level. We only look at creation from the viewpoint of it being intrinsically possible in existence and requiring a beginning, or in terms of bodies, parts or incidents in them. Science does not affect the original arguments of kalaam for the existence of Allaah, because they are deductive arguments based on obvious premises, such as “the world changes,” “bodies are either still or moving.” Science also takes these things for granted and looks into the correlations of change, and does not question the obvious any more than we do. In fact, without bodies or change there would be no science. Besides, kalaam terminology is really not that overwhelming. By knowing the meaning of possible, impossible and necessary you have taken great strides. Of course, sometimes scientists sometimes make statements that are not strictly scientific, but more philosophical or purely intellectual, and in this case there may be a need to answer them. I think the easiest way for this is to learn the terminology and main principles of kalaam and then putting such statements of scientists in a kalaam perspective, and not the other way around, because kalaam is conceptually at a higher level. After all, kalaam deals with existence itself as a concept, while science studies the nature of things that are intrinsically possible in existence; the way they happen to be and correlate, which is not essential in kalaam. In other words, science does not have the conceptual breadth to cover the concepts of kalaam.

      • Ayman says:

        So in other words, science is an axiomatic system that actually relies on the principles of logic and mathematics, philosophical truths such as the actual existence of the world etc. As such, science does not hold a monopoly on ‘Truth’, because it is itself contingent upon ‘truths’ that are beyond its remit. Very strong point – the ‘New Atheists’ of today have failed to understand this point exactly. In fact, one reason why Atheism is on the rise today is due to the irrationality amongst people today. They are ‘philosophically illiterate’. They hold to what is called ‘logical positivism’, which is self-defeating.

        Note, by ‘philosophy’ I’m simply referring to logic (as a system), sound and valid reasoning, deriving truths etc. I do not mean it in the sense it is used when describing the deviant ‘philosophers’.

        Salaam,

        Ayman

  4. Mo says:

    thanks for clearing that up shaykh. i suppose this just indicates the neglect of this key science amongst us especially as it is usually studied after the mastery of arabic, fiqh and hadith studies and its rare that scholars master both the religious sciences and secular too.

    it’s also a shame that our arab brothers are more interested in funding dodgy preachers than to revive islamic sciences, thought, and solving other issues that are holding us back.

  5. tru_quran says:

    As salamu ‘alaykum Shaykh,

    In the text ‘A Commentary on the Creed of Al Sanusi’ it says on page #13:

    The concept of having a son then,is incompatible with the concept of believing in one Creator that has absolute ownership of His creation.That is why Muslims must believe that itis impossible that Allāh should have a son; it has nothing to do with ability,
    because it is nonsensical and illogical.If someone asks,“Can Allāh have a son?”it is as if they are saying“Can the number 3 be 4?”The correct way of answering this then,is to say:“It is impossible that Allāh should have a son.”
    
    Note based on the above,that it is blasphemy to say that Allāh“can”have a son.This is because it implies a flaw in Allāh’s attribute of godhood - being the Creator and absolute owner of everything.
    
    However,it is also blasphemy to say that He is“unable”to have a son,because saying this shows disrespect to Allāh’s power. The correct expression is to say that it is “impossible that Allāh should have a son”or“absurd to claim that Allāh could have a son”.Having a son has nothing to do with being the Creator,and therefore is not related to Allāh’s attribute of power.The power to create is the power to bring something into existence,and this does not pertain to things that are impossible.”

    What is the difference between saying something is ‘impossible’ to happen compared to saying something is ‘unable’ to happen?

    Websters online dictionary says

    Impossible is
    1 a : incapable of being or of occurring

    Unable is
    : not able : incapable:

    • Unable is about ability, or power to do something for someone that takes action. When we say A is unable to do B, it means that A does not have the power to do it.

      “Impossible”, as used in the above context, is about something being irrational and absurd. When we say that it is impossible that Allaah could have a son, it is about this idea being irrational and absurd and without real meaning.

      When they say, “Allaah (the one that is attributed with godhood) can originate a son that is His,” then the proposed object of “originate” is “a son that is His,” i.e. ” i.e. the “son of the one that is attributed with godhood”. This proposed object is an absurdity, and has no real meaning, for the reasons I stated, namely that it contains self-contradictons, because “having a son” contradicts with “godhood”.

      To put it in another way: this proposed object has no actual meaning, like “a perfectly round square.” In this phrase “perfectly round” contradicts with “square” and we are left with no real meaning. In their phrase, “son of the one that is attributed with godhood,” “son” contradicts with “the one that is attributed with godhood”, and we are left with no real meaning. This means that the verb “originate” in their phrase “Allaah can originate a son that is His” actually has no real object. In other words, the phrase is absurd and actually meaningless.

      Despite having no real meaning, however, it is still kufr, because the one who accepts it does not know Allaah. He has not realized the true meaning of godhood, because he attributed to Allaah an attribute that contradicts with godhood. So we say it is impossible that Allaah could have a son, because it is impossible that God should not have godhood, as it would mean that He would not be God.

  6. tru_quran says:

    May Allaah grant you Jannatul Firdaws Shaykh.

  7. Muhammad says:

    Assalaamu alaikum,

    Shaykh, the link to a commentary on the creed of Al-Sanusi is broken.

  8. Seeker Of The Sacred Knowledge says:

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh Shaykh ,

    I would like to thank you for this blessed translation …

    BarakAllahufikum,

    Was-salam

    Seeker of the Sacred Knowledge Admin Team

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: