Dogma Disrupted
3 / 18
The Need for Orthodoxy | Episode 2
What is Islamic orthodoxy and why do we need it? Who gets to decide what is orthodox and how do we reconcile differences of opinion?
Join our host Imam Tom Facchine and special guest Dr. Tahir Wyatt in unpacking Islamic orthodoxy, its limits, and its assumptions in the way we understand our religion, read the Qur’an, and practice our faith. Additionally, discover how Yaqeen checks papers and content for Islamic orthodoxy.
Chapters
0:00 - Introduction
2:50 - The Greek roots of the word “orthodox”
7:14 - “Infidels” and fidelity (nasiha)
10:00 - The concept of orthodoxy is important for happiness in life
21:53 - There's a lot in Islam that no one differs about
23:31 - The Prophet ﷺ's final advice on dealing with differences
30:22 - What criteria make an ijtihad (interpretation) valid?
32:23 - Differences of opinion among the Sahabah
34:14 - What does it mean to do sajda (prostration) like a camel?
35:29 - Did the Sahabah disagree about aqeedah or just fiqh?
41:43 - How much of our aqeedah is a product of history after the Companions?
43:40 - Ibn Abbas (ra)'s debate with the Khawarij, the first sect in Islam
48:46 - The emergence of the Shi‘a and Murji’ah, and codifying aqeedah
52:42 - Some early written works on aqeedah
56:08 - “New aqeedah” as time goes on?
1:01:32 - The different contexts of Imam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyya
1:04:05 - Do the works of male scholars uphold the patriarchy?
1:11:34 - The importance of scholars
1:13:56 - How does Yaqeen ensure the orthodoxy of its content?
Want to listen on the go? Check out Dogma Disrupted on your favorite podcast platform.
Transcript
This transcript was auto-generated using AI and may contain misspellings. Is there a difference between some of the Aqidah of Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Ahmed? The answer might be yes, but that's only simply because they lived so far apart and there were different issues that the one who lived later had to clarify that the one who lived earlier did not have to clarify. The reality is that Sheikh Hussein Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim and others from that era of the late 7th century, early 8th century Islam, they're not Imam Ahmed. Welcome back to Dogma Disrupted, a Yaqeen podcast where we look at modern ideologies and put them under the lens. Today we have a very special guest, Sheikh Tahir Wyatt, who is the Research Director of Systematic Theology at Yaqeen Institute. Welcome Sheikh Tahir. Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, Jazakallahu khair for having me Sheikh Tahir. Waalaikumussalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. So today's episode is all about orthodoxy, so we're going to get right into it. What is orthodoxy? Do we need it and why? So those are three different questions. I think if we're going to have this chat, I think people need to know that we've spent quite a bit of time together in a different land, Alhamdulillah. And I think that this conversation that we're going to have, I'd like it to be as loose as possible. And therefore, feel free to cut me off whenever you want to cut me off and jump in inshallah to Anna. I'll take you back. The first time I heard the word orthodox, that I can remember hearing it, was actually not too long after I accepted Islam. It's not to say that it wasn't part of the vocabulary of anybody. It's just not something I used a lot. And what happened was I told somebody that I accepted Islam, and they said, are you nation or orthodox? I was like, nation or orthodox? I was like, I'm definitely not nation.
I knew what the nation of Islam was. So this is the, you know, earlier 90s, mid 90s, if you will, in Philadelphia, the nation of Islam was very strong in the 70s. And then their influence began to wane after that. But everybody still, anybody that was growing up in the 80s knew who the nation of Islam was in Philadelphia. So I knew it wasn't nation of Islam. So I was like, I guess I'm orthodox, but I don't really know what that means when it comes to Islam. The term that the Sunnis used to use for themselves was Sunni Muslims. But they were called orthodox Muslims by the nation of Islam, which is interesting enough, because orthodox does actually mean the straight way, the straight opinion, if you look at it from, you know, from its Greek roots, orthos means straight or upright, doxa is an opinion. So the straight opinion, basically, what we regard as being true and correct, that's what orthodoxy is. So I'm going to jump in there. So it has tucked into that concept, an idea that some opinions are right, and some opinions are wrong. Would that be accurate to say? Absolutely. Yeah. Because there's heterodox and there's orthodox, right? You have. Yeah. Yeah. So what is the idea of religion that sort of is in the background there, that is telling us that one opinion is right, and another one might be wrong? Because there's a lot of people who would say, well, you know, I have my religion, you have your religion, this guy over here in this part of the world has his religion, and all of them are acceptable, and all of them are valid. What's the idea of religion that is different between those two conceptions, where somebody's saying that they're all right, and somebody else is saying that no, one is right, or there is a right and there is a wrong?
Yeah, so, okay, so right, there's this underlying concept of religion, which is a little bit different than the way that we look at deen from an Islamic perspective, because now we are talking about one truth or haqq, and the other things are batil. So some things are the truth, and other things are false, and there are black and whites, you know, when it comes to those things. Sure, there are many things from an Islamic standpoint that may fall into those shades of gray, if you will, but there's no doubt about it that there are certain things that are haqq. For example, Allah Azzawajal is one, right? He is not three. La taqooloo thalatha, don't say three. This is truth, and that's falsehood. So the religion of Islam, and I think religions in general do draw lines, and they say that this is correct, and this is incorrect. This is moral, and this is immoral, right? So yes, that is one of the underlying presumptions of anyone that would follow the deen of Islam. I think it's really interesting, because it seems to indicate that there's two ideas about where religion comes from going on, right? So you've got one idea that religion is sort of almost like the product of a human effort, right? And lots of sort of anthropologists, they talk about it, like religions, they started out, you know, they have this whole evolutionary paradigm, right, where they started out animist and worshiping multiple idols, and then eventually they evolved into monotheistic religions. This entire sort of idea of history asserts that religion is the product of human effort, really, but people just are making it up the whole time. And if that's where your idea is, then you almost have to give equal legitimacy and validity to all of them.
Right, because how do you give more weight to this people, or these peoples, their intellects and their, you know, ideas of morality and what may not be morality or what truth and falsehood is? How do you give more weight to that than that, which is standard, right? Because it's all based on human something or other. It's the product of either human intellect or human experience, human reason, right? If it's not from Allah, the creator of the heavens and the earth, and it's from human beings, then correct, then we would have to figure out some weighting system there, right? And that's why you find that they do want to give equal credibility and tolerance to everybody and so on and so forth, tolerance to all ideas. And that strikes me as a very recent sort of way of looking at religion or what we're trying to get at when we talk about religion. Because if you look, if you go back before the modern era, you basically have people, they're not talking about this religion, that religion, you know, they're more talking about truth and falsehood, right? They're talking about like, as you said, Dean, right? Which is a very different concept than religion. Even talking about, you know, the idea of the word of infidel, which gets a bad rap for political reasons. But the idea that you are, you have fidelity, right? To the creator and what he sends down, or you have infidelity, right? Can we, can we actually, can we just talk about that for a second? Because actually, you know, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, الدين النصيحة And when you look at the word نصيحة, both linguistically and the way that the scholars have talked about نصيحة, it comes back, probably in Allah knows best, the best English word for that is fidelity. Because we're talking about being true to something, being loyal to something, right? Obviously, you know, some people say the deen is advice, but how do you advise Allah? How do you advise the Qur'an?
That doesn't really work. Advice to the believers is a product of being true to them. It's a product of the fidelity, right? So the Prophet, peace be upon him, is actually telling us the entirety of the deen is fidelity. This is what you're saying, right? The entirety of the deen of Islam is being true to something, being true to Allah, being true to his book, being true to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Yeah, and I mean, and so intellectual history is such a fascinating thing, because a lot of times we don't realize that the language that we use to discuss a phenomenon has certain ideas and has certain values in it. Like you said, حق و بلط. If we're talking about حق و بلط, we're talking about truth and falsehood, then already assumed in that sort of way of looking at it is that this thing comes from a divine source and that it's either going to be right, and correctness is sort of judged by fidelity to it, or you're going to go off the beaten path, and that's going to be an infidelity of sorts, versus the term religion, at least how it is used today. It gives equal, I think it implies equal validity. We talk about world religions, right? Somebody who goes to public school, and you learn in history class, you've got, oh, here's the unit on Christianity, and here's the unit on Judaism, and here's the unit on Islam, and it's very much even playing field. The idea is that these are all sort of different, you know, it's very much next to and involved in a culture, right? And we're almost automatically within the concept itself granting validity to it, which is very important. Or they're all equally invalid expressions of the truth, right? Which, or yeah, or lack thereof. It's interesting because it all depends on who's teaching it, right? So they're all equally valid or equally invalid, right?
So it is interesting, but I think that for us, the concept of orthodoxy is important because the stakes are so high. We are talking about salvation here. We're talking about accountability in front of Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la as an end game, if you will. But also, just for how you live your life, and will you be happy? And how do you fill the void that so many people find in their hearts? So there is a correct way. That's the way that we view it as Muslims, and I think that, I don't know if we're going to segue into this later, but maybe we should just talk about this right now because this actually, it sums up the du'a that Ibrahim Alayhi Salam made for this Ummah, right? When he finished building the Kaaba with Ismail Alayhi Salam, they made this du'a for the Ummah. رَبَّنَا وَبَعَثْ فِيهِمْ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُوَ عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِكَ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَ وَيُزَكِيهَا Right? So if we look at this du'a, he is saying, or they are saying, oh Allah, send amongst these people, the people that are around the Kaaba, a messenger from amongst them who does what? Two things. يَتْلُو. He recites to them the book. That means that part of the maqasid al-kubra, if you will, the great objectives of the bi'tha and the sending of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam was to recite the book. The love, that is, its actual words and structure, that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam would recite that to people and that that would be preserved.
That they would be purified and that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam would teach them the book and the hikmah. Now the hikmah has a lot of different interpretations. We use the interpretation of Ibn Shafi'i and others, they said it was the sunnah, but it's a little broader than that according to the majority of the mufassireen, but that's not the point here. I think the point here is this, that there's a difference between tilawat al-kitab or reciting the book and teaching the book. And the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam had both jobs. This is from the greater objectives of the sending of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam is that he teaches them both the recitation but also the meaning. So that means that either what the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam taught, okay, in terms of this is the correct interpretation of revelation because he's got to teach them the revelation itself. And then part of his job is to teach them the interpretation of revelation. So the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, his job was both, either what he taught the people was correct, meaning it was orthodoxy, or it was incorrect. If we say that what the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam taught was incorrect, then why would you follow the messenger Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam if what he's teaching about the Quran is a misrepresentation of what Allah Azawajal wanted us to understand from the Quran? No, that's really important. So if I could just to track where we're going, so the idea that there is a truth and there is a falsehood, right, that things aren't equal, right, and certain assumptions about a creator and that creator wanting to guide us, okay, that seems like the first thing. And then the second thing has to do with the text has to mean something, okay, right? The Quran has to mean something. And of all the possible meanings, they all can't be true, right?
Some of them have to be correct, and some of them have to be incorrect, just by virtue of how language works, right? We can't have two fundamentally, mutually exclusive, contradictory meanings, and both of them be right. That's nonsensical, right? So the text has to mean something, and it has to also not mean other things, which brings us the importance of the figure of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, because if the Quran was just like an empty slate, and we can just come and interpret it however we want, then what's the point of sending the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam to teach us the Quran in the first place? Allah could have just sent us Qurantees, right, He could have just sent us just a tablet or the book or the Quran in the form that we have it now. Everybody can read it the way that they want to. Everybody can put whatever meaning they want onto it. They can say this means this, and this means that. And so it's cutting out the station of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam to assume that. Right. So there's a lot to unpack there, Shaykh. I hope that we get a little time. I honestly hope we can spend a little bit of time on this, because there's quite a bit to unpack. The first thing is to take a step back and say, wait a minute, because we're all under this category right now. We're still dealing with this category of what is orthodoxy at the end of the day, right? So the first thing, like you said, is to recognize or we're going to assume that those who believe in some type of orthodoxy or are willing to open up their minds to believe that there is a thing called orthodoxy and that there is truth and there is something that is correct, that they believe that they were created, number one, and that this orthodoxy that they are going to follow is coming from the creator himself, Azzawajal. All right. On top of that, we cannot believe as deists believe, for example, that there's a creator, but then he kind of left everybody just to do their own thing, figure it out. There's no personal God, as they would later call it in religious terms.
So we can't just believe that Allah created the heavens and the earth and put some natural order in place, and then he doesn't answer du'a and he doesn't answer your prayers, nor does he- What kind of God would that be, really, right? Sorry? What kind of God would that be? Right. Right. Well, again, I mean, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of Americans actually kind of believe that, the ones that don't believe in organized religion, right? But they're not brave enough to be atheists, if I can use that terminology. Or obviously, they see for themselves signs that atheism doesn't particularly make sense to them. So they believe in a God, but this God is not involved in our lives. The reality is, is that Allah, Azzawajal, also addresses this in the Quran, And does man think that he would just be left Sudan? There's no objective. There's no aim. He's not going to be- He's not going to be commanded with anything. He's not going to be prohibited from doing other things, and therefore, not accountable for anything, because you haven't been told to do anything. So I think once we can get past this point and we can say, wait a minute, yeah, Allah created us. He created us with wisdom. There is, in fact, a purpose for us being on this earth, and we are going to be commanded to do certain things. We're going to be prohibited from doing other things, right? Then how do we know these commands and prohibitions? We know them through revelation. And this is, I think, takes us to the point that you were at right now, which is that revelation that comes, it could come down as a book. I mean, we have here, I have a Musaf, right? It can just come down. It just plops down on earth. And then everybody, like you said, reads it and assigns whatever meaning they feel is
most appropriate for themselves. Or we can have it as it has been with all of the revelations of the past that they have come through messengers. And those messengers are teaching the people the book. And this is explicitly the dua of Ibrahim and Allah Azawajal, as he mentions in Surah Jum'ah. So at the end of the day, Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la answered the dua of Ibrahim and he sent amongst the unlettered a prophet from amongst themselves, who recites his ayat, who purifies them and who teaches them the book and the hikmah. So now we get back and it kind of come full circle to this point here, which is that the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam, one of the reasons that Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la sent him, in fact, one of the primary reasons for him being sent was to teach the revelation, to recite to the people the revelation so that it would be preserved until Yawm al-Qiyamah. And that the meanings also of the Qur'an will be taught by the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam. It then follows, and I don't know if this is where you want to go, but it then follows that there are people who were with the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam, namely his companions, who then preserved those teachings as well and then passed them down. So there is, that is what is correct. And anything that opposes that diametrically, right, then that cannot possibly be correct.
As you mentioned, though, and I think this is important, the revelation, some revelation can be interpreted more than one way. It doesn't mean that there's not a correct interpretation. It means that there is, that Allah Azawajal is giving us leeway in understanding certain ayat, or for that matter, hadith of the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam, such that a person who misunderstands it is not liable, is not sinful in front of Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la. So a quick example, and you're probably more familiar with the wording of this example than I am because it's more of a fiqh thing than it is a theological thing, but the famous example when the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam told some of his companions, don't pray until you get to such and such a place, some of them understood from that, let's go really quickly so we can get there and pray Salatul Asr, and some of them understood, no, even if Salatul Asr goes out, we're not praying until we get to that place. The latter was not what the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam intended, however, the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam did not criticize them for understanding that because it is very possible, right? It is a plausible understanding of the statement of the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam. So they're not blameworthy. But however, that still isn't what the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam intended, as was made clear later. So anyway, I think that there are, again, some revelation gives leeway for various understandings, and some does not. So one of the doubts that a lot of people voiced to me, they say, well, if the companions were right there with the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam, and they had the opportunity to ask over the course of 23 years, how come there are different interpretations? Why hasn't it all been settled? Why is there such room for differences of opinion? Shouldn't it all be just revelation?
No, I don't think so. I think that what happened at the time of the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam, so first of all, there's a lot of Islam that nobody differs about, or historically they haven't differed about. Hence, across the board, the Quran, the Sunnah of the prophet Alaihi Salatu Wasalam, and Ijma' which is unanimous consensus of the scholars of any particular era, are all considered to be sources in Islam, part of where we can derive rulings from, both theological and practical, if you will. So the major issues of Islam, who differs about them? Like who differs that we're supposed to pray five times a day? Who differs that Al-Azhar exists? Who differs that there's a hereafter and that people will be held accountable and that there's Jannah and that there's Nahr and Paradise and the Hellfire? Who differs that, you know, that wealthy Muslims have to pay zakat? Okay, they may differ about the exact times of those five daily prayers. They may differ about percentages, if you will, when it comes to zakat, or inheritance for that matter. Or they may differ about when Ramadan starts and when it's over, but they don't differ about the fact that we have to fast the month of Ramadan. So the major issues of Islam, which we would call usul, foundations or fundamentals, this is not something that historically has been differed over.
And also the Prophet, peace be upon him, in what, not khutbah al-wada' as in the hajj, but the hadith of al-Irbaq in Masaria, may Allah be pleased with him, who said that the Prophet, peace be upon him, gave us an admonishment. He was saying some words and it was as if he was bidding us farewell. And so we asked him to advise us. And he said, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, whoever from amongst you all, meaning the companions themselves, whoever from amongst you all lives, has some life left in them and lives, you know, some decades or whatever, is going to see some great differing. Then he gave them the, what should they do when they see this differing, right? And it's important because he said, He said, so hold fast, adhere to my sunnah, but he did not stop there. And there's a reason. He said, And hold fast to the sunnah of the rightly guided khalifas who come after me, namely Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, may Allah be pleased with them. I mean, bite down on this with your molars. I'm going to ask you, Shaykh, what do you think we should understand from the fact that the Prophet, peace be upon him, didn't just say, hold on to my sunnah. But he also said to hold on to the sunnah of the Khalifa of Rashidin. What do you get from that? I don't want to put you on the spot, but I think it's important because this is an important discussion. And again, we're back in the library in Medina. So let's just have that conversation. Yeah. I mean, I think two major things. One is the primacy of the interpretations of the companions and especially the major companions that they understood in the most holistic and the most exhaustive way.
The intent behind the revelation, how to apply its universals to particulars. And so to take notice that there were going to be hawedith, right? Things that were going to come down the pipeline that nobody ever dealt with before. And yet their understanding of the deen was such. You know, they had been trained in a way by the Prophet, peace be upon him, that their extension of what they knew of revelation to unprecedented matters was going to be the best and closest to the truth. So that is two different things. Okay, because you said first and then I didn't hear a second. That was the second part. So yeah, let's separate those because this is exactly the point that I want to get across. Number one, the Prophet, peace be upon him, is giving us a clear indication of the superiority of their understanding. That is the Khulafah al-Rashidin and then obviously those who are closest to them in virtue and understanding that their understanding of the revelation more than anybody else. But the second thing is key. The second thing is key. And that is that there are going to be things that happen after the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, that won't be solved directly through revelation. It will have to be solved through the application of revelation, right? Through the application of those universals and particulars, as you mentioned. So it's important because during the lifetime of the Prophet, peace be upon him, nobody has to do what he had, right? Um, well, let me, let me take that. Let me take that back. There was ishtihad then during the time. There was a correction, right? There might have been ishtihad, but then it was corrected, right? That's what I was going to say. Any ishtihad that was incorrect would have been corrected by the Prophet, peace be upon him, or directly by Allah, peace be upon him, through revelation.
But then after the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, he's letting us know, look, they're going to be things that happen and they have to be addressed. There is a correct way to do that. Look at the way that these, that the khulafah al-rashideen al-mahdineen min ba'di, who come after me, look at the way that they apply revelation. Again, this is orthodoxy, right? What we're talking about, there is a correct way to understand the Quran. There's a correct way to understand the sunnah of the Prophet, peace be upon him. To get back to your other question, which is, well, why wasn't everything solved? The reality is, is again, as you mentioned, the Prophet, peace be upon him, lived how many years? I mean, as a prophet and messenger, we're talking 23 years. And we're going on now, 1440 years, 44 years after the hijrah of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Is it conceivable that everything that was going to happen throughout time, right, was going to happen at the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and that everything would be meted out? No, but we have the principles, we have the tools that are necessary to address and correct things throughout time and place. And that's really important, I think, for people to keep in mind, because sometimes people approach these issues with unrealistic expectations, right? So to expect sort of like this very minute detail, the Quran and the sunnah solving every single thing, in the most specific and explicit way, right? That's an unrealistic expectation, as you just said. Like there was only a certain amount of time that the Quran was being sent down. It was addressing things that were specific, but it was also giving the general principles behind those things, giving us the tools so that we could extend the application of the shari'ah indefinitely, no matter what comes down the pipeline. Exactly.
You know, and also, I mean, it shows just as there's a difference there, right? And I'm, you know, you could probably correct me and remember it even better, but I believe Abdullah ibn Umar, radiyallahu anhuma, you know, was hesitant, right, to deal with certain things after the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him, because he realized the gravity and the significance of the correction of revelation being cut off. And so there's an interesting sort of thing where it's like, we have this sweet spot, I think, in Islam. It's like that there is, you know, saying that everything has been completely revealed in explicit granular detail, that there's no need for interpretation whatsoever. That's false. That's one extreme. And then the other extreme is also true. Excuse me. The other extreme is also false, that the text just means whatever I want it to mean. And there's multiple interpretations, and they're all equally valid. So two things I want to get to, and maybe if you have an interjection, then we can deal with that first. But I want to get to what, as the Prophet, peace be upon him, passes away, okay? And we've got the era of the Companions and the Tabi'in and then those after them. What is the criteria that makes an ijtihad valid? What's a criteria that makes an interpretation valid? I think that's a really, really important thing to explore. Okay. Alhamdulillah. So I think that this, even if I have time to do this particular topic justice, I would actually recommend that people go back. I think we have, at Yaqeen Institute, we have a few pieces that address this particular topic, not exhaustively, but enough to give a person a decent overview.
The first was written by Dr. Nazir Khan on where do we draw the line? I think it is. I think that's the name of the article. Where do we draw the line? Permissible differing and those type of things. I don't know the exact title offhand. Maybe you can, maybe you can inform the audience. And also, Dr. Hatzman-Hadj's piece on indefensive faith. So, which is dealing with the Islamic apologetics. I think that both of these pieces are well written, well thought out. It does not, and I think people have to also be mature in their understanding to say just because you recommend reading something does not mean that you agree with every single point in the piece, right? But nonetheless, I think overall, both pieces are very good introductions to the subjects that they are bringing up, which is what does constitute valid differing? Now, I will summarize as best as I can this particular point, which is what era are we talking about, right? Because where the Sahaba may have differed, then we can almost guarantee that that was permissible differing. Almost. And that doesn't mean that that's not to say that there were certain things that maybe one Sahabi did that you would find that the rest of the Sahaba were not in line with, right? And so that way you would say, well, almost all of the Sahaba came against them.
So, for example, Abu Huraira radiallahu ta'ala anhum making wudu past the elbow, extending it up the arm, past the ankle, extending it up the leg. None of the other Sahaba, to my knowledge, radiallahu ta'ala anhum, did that or approved of that, right? And there were certain other things that some of the, you know, ahadith Sahaba will say, that is that individual Sahaba may have done that the other Sahaba did not agree with. But in general, if you find the Sahaba having wide disagreement, not even disagreement, differing, different opinions on something, right? Then you can say that, masha'Allah, that falls into the scope of permissible differing. And they didn't fight each other because of that. Umar radiallahu ta'ala anhum, when he would go down in sujood, he would go down on his knees. Ibn Mas'ud radiallahu ta'ala anhum, some of the other companions, when they would go down, it's reported that they will go down on their hands first and then their knees. They weren't fighting each other over this, right? Even though the interesting part about that is they did pray behind the Prophet, alayhi salatu wa salam. So did they see the Prophet, alayhi salatu wa salam, do both? Were there certain circumstances where the Prophet, alayhi salam, did both? What does he mean? Don't go into sujood like a camel? Does that mean that the, you know, uh, does that even? A funny story. I have a funny story about that because when I was a new Muslim and I first read that hadith, first thing I did was jump on on YouTube and try to look up how a camel, like literally, like how camels sit down. And then I watched it and I'm like, well, that doesn't help because there's ambiguity. It's got more sort of joints than we do. Right. You can't tell if it's resembling a human being going down their knees first or going down their hands first. It's not possible to tell.
Well, the interesting thing is that some of the ulamas say it has nothing to do with the hands and knees. It means that the noise that the camels make when they go down into sujood, that the whole point is again, right? We're looking at a wide spectrum of opinions. So in general, in general, it is not permissible to differ in usul. It is not. Now we're going to, that was going to be my next question because a lot of folks and even the articles, I scanned all the articles that we have on these issues before, you know, making up this, our, our program for today. A lot of them give FIC examples, right? Everybody understood. Well, I should say that disagreements in FIC are more understood. Okay. Did the sahabah disagree in aqidah about anything, whether a minor issue or a major issue? And what are the implications of that? Of course. Yes, the sahabah did disagree about some aqidah issues, but I think, I think to go so broad and say that it's permissible to differ in aqidah, that may open up a different discussion. So let's take it back. Let's go back for a second and let's just take our time for this for a second, for a second, if you don't mind. So the deen, you can largely break it down into ilmiyat, right? And amaliyat, if you will. So based on khabr and talab, because this is at the end of the day, Allah azawajal is informing us of certain things that we're supposed to believe in or revelation because it's not just Allah azawajal. Also through the prophet, alaihi salatu wasalam, sometimes the prophet, alaihi salatu wasalam, informs us of things our obligation is to, is to believe in those things. Perfect. There are other things that we are required to do or not to do. These are the amaliyat, right? Practical things. Pray five times a day. Be good to your parents.
Give zakat, these type of things. Okay. So the usool of the deen are those larger issues that all of the early Muslims, the sahaba radiyallahu ta'ala a'in hum and then the tabi'een after them, that they all agreed on these particular issues. All right, whether they're from the first category or the second category. So whether it is, for example, that you have to believe that Allah azawajal hears you. Okay, it's a belief. And it is iman bil ghayb. You have no other way of verifying that other than your iman. Meaning that you have textual evidence to back this up. Okay. So alhamdulillah, we believe that all of the early Muslims believe that. We have plenty of narrations that back that up from the sahaba radiyallahu ta'ala a'in hum themselves. And then we can see a clear chain to when the aqeedah was actually written down at a later time, formulaically, if that's a real word. You can help me out. But to actually codify the aqeedah, which obviously did not happen during the time of the sahaba radiyallahu ta'ala a'in hum. No one was writing down. We believe in Allah on the last day and these type of things like this is in the Qur'an and the prophet, alayhi salatu wasalam, taught in that. So, all right. So these are considered to be usul. Because all of them believe that there's unanimous agreement amongst them. Likewise, that everyone who has the ability has to make hajj. Right? This is an usul, even though what this is not a belief. It is a practice. You go, you make hajj.
The practices of Islam are obviously rooted in belief. You believe that it's an obligation. And so therefore you do it. All right. So these are at the end of the day considered to be usul. There are other things that are furu' and some of them may be based on khabar. That is Allah azawajal informing us of something and there being a difference of opinion about what exactly this means. So for example, Right? No, they are going to be screened from their Lord on that day. Okay. So some of the early Salaf understood from that that the kuffar will not see Allah subhanahu wa'ta'ala on Yawm al-Qiyamah. Others understood. No, there are other texts that indicate that they will see him, but it won't be as the seeing of the believers and when the believers see Allah subhanahu wa'ta'ala, Right? Which is the greatest blessing of the people of Jannah. In fact, in the Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam used to make that dua O Allah, I ask you for the delight of seeing your face and that desire, that longing to meet you. Right? So again, okay. This is another topic. The believers seeing Allah subhanahu wa'ta'ala. This is an issue of consensus amongst the Sahaba and those who came after them. Now, somebody might say, yeah, but you know, right at the time of the At-Tabi'een, you have the Mu'tazila, right? Who come and they say, no, nobody will see Allah on the Day of Judgment. You will never see. You'll never see me. Okay. So that means that even in the hereafter, the believers don't see Allah subhanahu wa'ta'ala. Well, now there are certain sects of Islam, but that's considered to be against orthodoxy
because they were preceded by Ijma'il. They were preceded by the consensus of the scholars of Islam that this is what this particular position is. If you want to unpack that, we can go further. It's up to you. That's pretty good. But you mentioned something that I actually wanted to segue towards. When you mentioned the Tadween, you mentioned the historical aspect of the codification of Aqidah. At the time of the Sahaba, it was not written down. And then at a certain point, it became written down. Historicization is a really, really important thing to understand because a lot of Western scholarship is based on a lot of hermeneutics, the hermeneutic tradition, when it comes to interacting with texts. The historical critical method, also brought to us by, you know, higher criticism from the Western Academy. It places an enormous emphasis on the historicity, right? Or the historical process. Now, how much of our Aqidah as Muslims is a product of history? Okay? How much of it is original to exactly as the Salaf had it and exactly as the Prophet ﷺ taught? And how much of it is a later interpretation? Whether it was the time of Imam Ahmed and al-Bukhari or later on. Could you speak to that a little bit? Yes. I mean, inshallah, we can talk about it. I don't, to answer your question right away, how much of it? That's a difficult, like, I've never done like a survey to kind of look at percentages. Like, for example, this particular book. But let's take it back. How do we know? I mean, maybe that's even a more immediate question. Like, how do we know what they believed?
Yes. Right. Because the, is the Qur'an telling you that Abu Bakr believes this? Or Omar believes that? Is the Qur'an telling you what the tabi'een believe? No. It's telling us what we're supposed to believe. And some of this stuff is very obvious. As Ibn Abbas, may Allah bless his soul, you know, when he talked about the tafsir of the Qur'an, some of it is known at the end of the day. You understand the Arabic language. It's so clear. It doesn't really need interpretation at the end of it. In fact, anybody who knows Arabic is going to understand it this way, period. There's another part of tafsir, la yu'adhar ahadun, ya'ani bi jahlihi, or kama qalas radiyallahu ta'ala anhumayn. There's another part that nobody is excused for not knowing, right? Not just because it's from lughat al-arab, but because the interpretation of these particular ayat have been made clear by the Prophet, all of the Muslims that believe this, and so there's only one way to understand it. Those things are pretty clear. Now what happened over time is that there were those who departed from the understanding of the Sahaba, radiyallahu ta'ala anhumayn. And that happened very early, by the way. It happened at the time of Ali, radiyallahu ta'ala anhumayn, with the Khawarij themselves. So this was the first sect in Islam. And they separated themselves, and they camped in a place called Harurat in Iraq. And Ibn Abbas, radiyallahu ta'ala anhumayn, he actually requested from Ali, radiyallahu anhumayn, to go and have a debate with them, try to talk them, you know, and to try to convince them that the path that they're following is not the correct path, right, and to try to convince them, you know, through Islam that what they're
doing is incorrect and that they're going to harm themselves and harm the Muslims because this is evidently going to lead or imminently going to lead to a civil war because this was already on the table. And this is why Ibn Abbas requested from Ali, look, let me go talk to them first before there's a war. This is important, I think, because it'll take us into this concept of the aqidah being mudawwina, or written down. Ibn Abbas goes to the Khawarij, and immediately he notices that these are people who are devout worshippers of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, and they kind of take to distancing themselves from worldly things. And the first comment that they make is, look at this beautiful, you know, look at this garment you have on, right, like, you know, aren't, why are you, basically, why are you so worldly? Because you look so nice, you know, maybe you have buttons, I don't know, like, bougie, I call them bougie, bougie, that's it. You know, you, basically, you're coming down into the hood from the suburbs, you know. So what's this? So Ibn Abbas, he didn't let that slide. He said, indeed, the Prophet Ali used to wear better than this. Right away, he's calling them out, he's saying, look, y'all don't really understand Islam. You're commenting on something that doesn't deserve to be commented on. And if the Prophet Ali salallahu alayhi wa sallam wore better than this, then what am I doing particularly wrong? He says, okay, what's the issue anyway? Let's talk. What are your issues? Right? They had a problem with the hakamayn, between representing Ali radiyallahu ta'ala anhu and Muawiyah radiyallahu anhu, and how can you get these two people, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari and Amr ibn al-As, how can you get them to get involved in an affair? That's my daleel. I got daleel from the Qur'an. The ruling, the decision is only for Allah. How can you bring two other people to make decisions?
Because it should only be for Allah. That's our understanding of the Qur'an, like you talked about before. And I hope we can, I hope you'll be patient enough to kind of let's talk through this. Right. So what happens as a result? You get, they mentioned the other two issues that they had. So that's it. That's what y'all got. Okay. So let's go back to your first point about the hakam. Didn't Allah say, if the man and a woman and a woman, a man and his wife, if they get to the point where they are, are fear that they're going to divorce. Allah said, if you fear that there's going to be a split between them, then send a hakam, right? An arbiter, somebody who's going to make a decision from his side, an arbiter from her side. If they want islah, Allah is going to bring harmony between them. If they want to Islam. So he says to them, do you not see that Allah said to send a hakam? That's true. But what this is talking about is something that contradicts what Allah has already decided. And this is not the case here. So the point here, the other thing that he mentioned that I forgot to mention here that I think is really important. It ties back into what you mentioned earlier as an explanation of the Prophet saying, follow my sunnah and the sunnah of the rightly guided khalifa. Is that Ibn Abbas said, I just, I am coming to you from I'm coming to you from the companions of Allah's messenger. Notice that there's not one of them amongst you. This is the cause of your deviation. It's not
that you've left the book of Allah and in totality. No, it's that you've left the understanding of the companions of the messenger of Allah of the revelation. Now to tie that in, because everything happened for a reason, including when we look at Tadween or the writing down of the madhab and all of that, all of that came about for a reason. So now you have this early sect in Islam, the sect that came after them in terms of chronological order were the Shia, right? Which was largely a political movement at the time and not particularly theologically. They didn't have many theological grounds by which they differed without us. So then it was more political. After them came the Murjiya who basically divorced faith and actions or Iman and Amal. They were the polar opposites of the Khawarij. In fact, it is clear that they were, in fact, their development came as a response to the Khawarij. The Khawarij now are excommunicating people, making Takfir, declaring them to be Kuffar because of them committing major sins. How do we solve that issue? Well, we say major sins are not a part of Iman. Therefore, or even actions themselves are not a part of Iman. Therefore, if somebody does not do the Faraid or they do whatever they do from sins, it doesn't affect
the Usul of their Iman. They'll still be inside the fold of Islam. Ishaq ibn Rahawai and others from most of the early scholars of Islam, they say, غلط المرجع حتى صار من قولهم إن من ترك الصلاة والزكاة والحج ورمضان Right? يعني ترك ذلك كله إنه مؤمن. Their statement went so far that they say whoever leaves off Salat and Zakat and Hajj and Ramadan, that that person is still a Mu'min. What he meant by Mu'min here was not the distinguish between Mu'min and Muslim, no. He meant that they still said that this person is inside the fold of Islam. Now, granted, stay with me, amongst the Salaf, they disagreed about Hajj and the majority of them held that if a person leaves off Hajj, not that they are denying its obligation, but they just don't do it, that they're sinful. Some of them held that that person was a Kufar. Again, this is a differing of opinion amongst the Salaf, and this is, in fact, ane'atadi, and it has theological roots to it. Because we're talking about a person's Iman or not. Do you pray over this person when they die or not? Right? Because, okay, I'll tell you, same thing with Ramadan, the fasting of Ramadan, the same thing with Zakat. When it came to Salat, it was different. Because the majority of the Salaf held, including the Sahaba themselves, held that a person who leaves off Salat, even if they don't deny its obligation, but they're just lazy or whatever, that that person is not a Muslim. That that person is not a Muslim. However, there were from amongst the Salaf, including al-Imam al-Zuhri and from the early to having the great scholars of Islam, Imam Malik, from what I remember, that they did not hold them to be Kufar by simply leaving off the Salat.
However, here's the issue. Somebody leaves off all of them, then that person was considered to be a Kafir amongst the Salaf. And they said that it was the statement of the Murjiya to keep that person aside, the fold of Islam. Okay. How do we know this stuff? Where does this stuff come from? Well, you did start getting from the second century Hijri, right? The middle to the late second century, those who started penning down their Aqidah. Okay. There's a big difference of opinion whether al-Fiqh al-Akbar is really Imam Abu Hanifa's writing or not. Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la knows best. I mean, that would be a longer discussion, but that would be one of the earlier works of al-Aqidah. And then you have treaties that were specifically written on Aqidah by an Imam of Bukhari, before him an Imam Ahmed, before him some of the students of Imam al-Shafi'i and others that began to write down small treaties on Aqidah. And some of them got a little longer, but what we do have, and I think this is important because this is not widely available in the English language, which is Kutub al-Aqidah al-Musnadah. That is those theological works that have Isnad. Right. So we're talking one of the earlier ones, for example, As-Sunnah lil-Khalal. Okay. Which is extensive. We're talking Al-Shari'ah lil-Ajurri. Al-Khalal, from what I remember, died at 311 after the Hijrah. But he's narrating with Isnad, back to the Tabi'een. What they said, and you're not talking about, you know, between him and the Tabi'een,
sometimes there are three narrators, four. And with the science of Hadith, you can verify all of that. A lot of it already has been done, the work is done. Al-Ajurri in Shari'ah, right, which is one of the major theological works. He was Shafi'i, but he narrates with his Isnad. The miza, or the distinguishing characteristic of his particular work on Aqidah that I love, is that he does offer some commentary, even on the statements of the Salaf that he's going back to. You have Al-Ibana lil-Bin-Battah. You have Shari'ah lil-Tiqarah lil-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah lil-Lalika'i. All of these are narrating with Isnad. And then even when you look at the books that were written specifically as theological tracts, I mean, SubhanAllah, Bukhari, rahimuhullah, his was major because he's offering his own interpretation, but he's also bringing you San'id, right, back to the Salaf. And as you know, Bukhari has tulatiyat in his Sahih, which means that between him and the Prophet ﷺ, only three people, means him to the Sahaba, only two people, you know. So Bukhari, also, you know, his books are really important in this matter. I could go on and on on this particular topic, but just to say that we have these works recorded, they are there, walhamdulillah. I'm not going to turn the camera on to show you, like, the section in the library, mashaAllah, that deals with this particular thing. But I'm not going to be, walhamdulillah, on this particular topic, I'm not going to be shook by anybody that comes and says anything historical or that this aqidah is made up. Sure, I think it's important to note, that aqidah, if I can say it developed over time, that may be a stretch, but let's just say
that because issues arose over time that did not exist earlier, that the response of Ahlus Sunnah to those things may look like new aqidah. But it's not really new, it's more of an extended articulation of a previous issue. And if you will, can I give you an example of what I mean? Oh, please do, yeah. All right, so the example that comes to mind off the top of my head is, it's kind of funny, even though it shouldn't be, but this debate between Imam Ahmed and Ibn Abi Du'aad, because Ibn Abi Du'aad was representing the Mu'tazila, and Imam Ahmed was holding firm that the kalam of Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la is not created. All right, and Ibn Abi Du'aad and others from amongst the Mu'tazila, but he was the one representing them, they were the ones saying that the speech of Allah and the Quran is created. So, okay, so they get debate day one. Imam Ahmed says to him, Ya Ibn Abi Du'aad, this statement that you're making, that the book of Allah, the speech of Allah is created, is it from the deen or it's not from the deen? So, Ibn Abi Du'aad said it's from the deen, it's from Islam. So he says, Hadith deen, the one that you're talking about, this deen. Alimahu Ar-Rasul Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam Wa Abu Bakr Wa Umar Wa Uthman Wa Ali Am Lam Ya'lamu. This deen you're talking about, did the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam know about it? He know this deen, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, or they didn't know about it? And he said, Bal Alimu, what do you mean? Of course they know. He said, Aynahu Wa Fi Karamihim. Where is it in their speech?
Ibn Abi Du'aad, he had nothing to say. How are you going to respond to that? So he said, okay, give me another chance. This is what he says to Imam Ahmed. He says, sure, take another chance. He said, they didn't know. This is recorded by Daredevi and others, by the way. This is not a made up story. It's right there. They're telling you what happened. So he said, no, they didn't know. So Imam Ahmed said, wait a minute. He said, Deenu Lam Ya'lamu Rasuluhu Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam Wa La Khulafa'u Min Ba'dihi Wajitta Tua'limuna Ant. The deen that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam didn't know, the Khulafa al-Rashidin, they didn't know. And you're coming to teach us this deen? Fankhata. Couldn't say anything. He said, okay. He came back the next day. He said, all right, give me another chance, said Imam Ahmed. He said, let me start now. He said, this statement that you make, that the speech of Allah is not makhluk, it's not created. He said, is this deen or this isn't deen? Imam Ahmed said, this is deen. He said, this deen that you're talking about, the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, the Khulafa after him, that they know it or they didn't know. Imam Ahmed said, oh, they knew. He said, where is it in their speech? He said, uskutu naskut. You all be quiet. We'll be quiet. We don't have to say that the Quran is not makhluk, it's not created. We don't have to say that because it's sufficient that we know that the speech of Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la is one of his sifat, it's one of his attributes. And he is not created and therefore his attributes are not created. That's sufficient for us. We don't have to say that, but we're saying it because you're saying it. And I think that this is
indicative of many other aspects that have developed over time in the aqidah of Ahlus Sunnah that it was a response to something else that was happening at a said time. So that response, like I said, is an extended articulation of principles that already exist in the aqidah. So it's not new in that sense, but it is a different articulation. Allah knows best. I think that's really well evidenced. That's an extremely important point because you've got orientalist scholars that are going to say that everything in the aqidah is just a product of history. Even the idea of Allah came from al-lat and all this nonsense that this is just, or coming from the syriac, this, that, the other, that everything is a product of history. And obviously this is a whole worldview. This is a whole aqidah that there is no philosophical naturalism that everything has to be produced in this cone, in this dunya, that it can't come from outside of it. And that's one extreme. But then we have to be careful not to be baited into saying that, well, okay, everything that, and again, I agree with you. I don't necessarily like the word development because development implies improvement, I think. And it's not so much improvement as it is clarification, extension, application. That yes, there are differences, if somebody's going to say, is there a difference between some of the aqidah of Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Ahmed? The answer might be yes, but that's only simply because they lived so far apart and there were different issues that the one who lived later had to clarify that the one who lived earlier did not have to clarify. So I don't think that we should necessarily shy away from that fact.
I also, and I'll add to this at the risk of perhaps offending some people, but the reality is that Shaykh Usama Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, and others from that era of the late 7th century, early 8th century Islam, they're not Imam Ahmed. I mean, at the end of the day, they're, Imam Ahmed's proximity to the atba' tabi'in, to the tabi'in, and even, it was just different. I mean, you can't, you can't, you can't compare. It's a comparison of apples and oranges only because of the time frame, right? Like you said, so after Imam Ahmed, I mean, you've got a huge philosophical movement that enters into Islam and attributes itself to Islam, Islamic philosophy, and all of this type of stuff. And I'm using that term loosely, Islamic philosophy. But like you said, that these are contentions that Ibn Taymiyyah is going to deal with that Imam Ahmed did not have to address. And so even the language is going to be different, right? But again, what I'm saying is you can't compare these early giants to anybody that came after them. And it's not to say, Allahu akbar, I mean, what their station is, what a loss for him it's at. But I'm saying, when we look at the tradition of Islam, and you can't compare the times of Imam al-Shafi'i or Malik before him, Imam Ahmed coming after him, you can't compare that with something that happened 500, 600 years later. Excellent. There's one other thing that I want to address, specifically with the whole historical dimension, because the other sort of big shubha, or the big doubt that's introduced into how much can we trust the aqeedah, especially the works of the scholars, especially as we get further and
further away from that sort of anchor of the time of the sadaf and the companions, right? There's a doubt that, well, most of the people who are writing and who developed either the aqeedah or any field, fiqh, seerah, whatever, they are men. They have a certain positionality, they have power, they have privilege in society, they have their own cultural baggage and their cultural assumptions steeped in patriarchy, and that this unfairly colored their opinions and their perspective when it came to clarifying later issues. This usually applies to fiqh and not so much aqeedah, but I think it's a really important thing to address, because it's a huge doubt that I think a lot of people suffer from today. How would you respond to that? So, I do think this is more of a fiqh thing than an aqeedah thing, but I can see how people may even use that argument, if you will, to apply to some theological discussions. But I don't know how real that argument actually is, for several reasons, and I would say, what exactly are we comparing it to? What are we comparing their particular environmental circumstances or socioeconomic or whatever era they were living in, what are we comparing it to? So, are we comparing it to right now? Like, is this the gold standard? More women involved in the public sphere? More women involved in
whatever? What's the issue? I think they are. I think that they're saying that history progresses, there's a sort of belief in progress, historical progress that's at play there. But that itself needs to be challenged. Why is today better than yesterday? Who said? Where exactly is that coming? In fact, if we look at it strictly from an Islamic perspective, the Prophet ﷺ says, لا يتيز منه إلا والذي بعده أسوأ منه أو كما قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أو شبه منه. There's no time that comes except that it's worse than the time that comes. In other words, from an Islamic perspective, things are not exactly getting better. Again, I think the issue is if you look at it holistically and maybe not, okay, maybe technology has made certain aspects of our lives easier, but is that necessarily better? I mean, I think a lot of that needs to be challenged. But let's just say that that's not the assumption. I think that if we look back from the time of the Prophet ﷺ himself, were women just ignored? I don't see that. I don't see that in any part of our scholarship. I'm saying from the time of the Prophet ﷺ on, I just don't see that being the case. Aisha ﷺ is largely touted as one of the greatest scholars of Islam, female or male, like compared to anybody. The Prophet ﷺ used to seek counsel from his wives in certain matters. And this is something that you can see it. I mean, if you go back and you take some time to look at, number one, you just read through the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ and see what kind of engagement women had in society. Yet it was less in terms of in a public sphere than what we have right now. It doesn't mean that they were less
involved, maybe not as publicly so. Or influential. I think influence too. I think there's an assumption that public participation automatically equates to influence. Which is also a misnomer. Exactly, yes. It's funny because I was just looking at this book the other day, How to Lead Without Power, right? Or How to Lead When You're Not in Charge, or something like that. How to Lead When You Don't Have a Position. I forget the exact name of the book. But the point is, you can be influential without being known even, right? Yes. In fact, it might protect you and make you more influential than if you're the face of something and all the rotten tomatoes and eggs get thrown at you when things go wrong. I'm going to assume that's from your Italian side and kind of knowing how mafia works. I can't hide it. So it's true. But I want to look at how this plays out with women and claims of patriarchy and these type of things like that. I'm trying to figure out what men are they talking about that lived in this vacuum where women were not a part of society. Like these men who did not have fathers, excuse me, they didn't have mothers, right? They were just kind of born somehow, whatever. They hatched, maybe. I don't know. But they had mothers. They had sisters. They had daughters that they had to marry off. And they're looking for... I mean, look at how many times you look through the books of fic and they talk about what is compatibility, right? And so laying out these things because they want to make sure that the person that's marrying their daughter is somebody that's going to actually take care of it. They're like, they cared about their womenfolk. What I'm reading from the books is not that. I'm not reading from men and I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all. I'm not saying you can't go cherry pick things that you want to pick from here and there that is just like, that's kind of weird.
But I'm saying overall, if we look at scholarship, I think that that claim has to be justified. And I don't think it can be justified because I just don't see where these men are existing without their own wives actually influencing them in the way that they view things. Yeah, that's true. It assumes a certain definition of power and subjectivity forming, the assumption is that somebody or any person is bound to act in the interests of their identity group. And that if they hold power, then they're certainly going to apply that power in order to bring benefits and privilege to their identity group, to the exclusion of different identity groups. And that's just not, first of all, it's not theoretically true necessarily, necessarily. And second of all, I mean, if you look at who we're talking about specifically, like we're talking about the ulama, we're talking about people who the majority of whom, you know, fear Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, more than you and I fear Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, that are, you know, are kept up at night, at the possibility that they did someone unjustly, right? If there's any type of human being in human history, that is not going to simply be led by their in-group interest or their gender identity, you know, this sort of thing that's going to be able to transcend that, it's the ulama, it's the scholars, you know, and, you know, we're not talking about the phony scholars, we're not talking about, you know, I can go find some, you know, far out quotes here and there and cherry pick, you know, just like you could if you really wanted to, but we're talking about the mainstream authorities that everybody recognizes from century to century. If there's anybody who transcended their own narrow interests, it was this group of people. Jazakallah khairan, I think that's well stated. And I think that it is very important, and I think it's an objective we talked about as researchers,
it's important to re-establish this group, this body of human beings known as scholars of Islam, particularly the ones that have passed, as you mentioned. But even today, I mean, alhamdulillah, we still have in this ummah, I mean, those whom are clear, you cannot, you know, you cannot definitively say that they are awliya of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, because Allah azza wa jal truly knows best. But from our perception, and you would say subhanAllah, that person appears to be very close to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, and as you mentioned, able to transcend at least many of their own biases, and able to transcend what may be in their own self-interest, right? But again, I think that this is, I think that there has been a systematic effort to cause distrust amongst the real scholars of Islam. Because then, again, orthodoxy goes out the window, and now anybody's opinion, you know, can be valid, and there can be multiple truths, and my truth versus your truth, and nobody's truth is more valid than the other ones. And then, you know, you can kind of just do what you want. Like if you remove the scholars, as the Prophet, alayhi salatu wasalam, said, right? The scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets. They are the ones that, again, they are the ones that put the time in to study, and to learn what is orthodox, right? Because that had to be passed down through a chain. The sahaba, radiyallahu ta'ala anhum, who learned from the Prophet, salallahu alayhi wasalam, the tabi'in who learned from the sahaba, and so on and so forth, down until today, there is a correct way to understand Islam. There's a correct way to understand the texts, in general. And like we said, there's some black and white, some gray in between, but there definitely is black and white. So with that being said, if a person can
eliminate the credibility of this body, then anything is fair game. Fair game. And then huwa comes in, and a person just follows their desires. We've got nine minutes left. There's one last topic I really want to touch on, and that is Yaqeen Institute, and how we check content for orthodoxy. So right now, what do we do to ensure that Yaqeen content, whether it's papers or otherwise, adheres to Islamic orthodoxy? Oh, big topic. But basically, when we're talking about how do we ensure that the papers, that the research that goes out, adheres to orthodoxy, there are a couple of people, I'm one of them, who actually does what we term internally an orthodox check for all of the research that comes through. So as I'm sure you're well aware, a paper goes through several phases, research goes through several phases, if someone wants to publish something with Yaqeen Institute. I'll skip the beginning phases, but basically, once it is actually written and complete, then it has to go through a peer review process. We try to do that before we do an orthodoxy check. So it'll go through peer review. Some things will be corrected in that peer review process. After that, they say that academically it's sound, or at least it seems to be sound, it's ready to move on to this final check, which is known as the orthodoxy check. We do have internal documents that basically create an algorithm for what orthodoxy looks like, what's accepted and what's not accepted. Some of this is what we just talked about now. For example, if something is clearly against the consensus of
the early scholars, then it's going to be rejected, because you're bringing something novel into Islam, and that is not something that we can put out to the public. Now, the interesting thing about that is, from an academic perspective, this is totally fine, by the way. In fact, the academy seems to encourage people to think differently. You don't have to stick to traditional interpretations, and maybe there's a different way to look at this, and so on and so forth. So what does happen sometimes is when people who are writing for Yaqeen are writing like they would for just any other academic journal, some of them are a little bit surprised when they see some of the comments, which is like, nope, that's not going to work here. This interpretation goes against what all of the scholars of Tafsir have said, for example. And so at that point, we have to look at both topics and sections of papers, and sometimes the totality of it may be rejected. I don't want to specify, well, I'll mention something. So for example, we did have a paper that was submitted on Ibn Qayyim's view on the eternity of the Hellfire, or the Hellfire being extinguished after a period of time, and so on and so forth. And the paper, alhamdulillah, the paper was well written, it was well researched, but it wasn't a Yaqeen piece. But what do I mean by that? Meaning that the author did his job, alhamdulillah, but that particular opinion of Ibn Qayyim, rahimahullah ta'ala, goes against what our algorithm of orthodoxy allows for, especially
because there was not enough to establish what is the, let's just call it the orthodox view, which is that the Hellfire is continuous, and that it is eternal. So as a result, no hard feelings, it's not like the author did anything wrong, it's just not a piece that works for Yaqeen. We do deem it to be a responsibility in front of Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, that the information that we put out is credible. That being said, whether I'm reviewing that piece or someone else is reviewing the piece, it doesn't mean that we necessarily agree with every single opinion that comes through. It means that we believe that it is legitimate in terms of, it has evidence that supports it Islamically, and that there are scholars of the past, the early past, not later scholars, but from early on who held these opinions and who evidenced them, or who had solid evidence for them from an Islamic perspective, and it does not go against the consensus of the early scholars of Islam. So again, I know that was a mouthful, but it's very important to us that the information that goes out to the public is credible. And we have a checklist of things, I know it would take a minute to go through, so obviously we're looking at hadith of the Prophet, we're looking at interpretation of the Quran. So sometimes there's an interpretation, when I mean interpretation, I mean like translation, a person is translating, and it's a novel translation, it's like, wait a minute, where is this coming from? Because we can check against 70, 80 different translations available in the English language, and then we say, well this is totally different than all of
those, where did this come from? And then this may be a back and forth with the author to say, wait a minute, consider this kind of translation. Sometimes language is misleading, it may appear that the author means one thing, and so we have to go back and check and say, wait a minute, that may be misleading to an audience. So all of these are things that we take into consideration. So has this process always been in place, and has it always been applied? Or is this something that has a history itself? Oh, it has a history itself. So when I first... You have three minutes, so I need you to be brief. How many? Three minutes. Okay, so very quickly, I would say that this process was in its infancy towards the end of 2019. Okay, let's put it this way, the current process that Yaqeen has for orthodoxy check, when did it come into place? Late 2020 is probably when it came into, as it exists today. Okay, so before that, because Yaqeen has received a lot of criticism for some of the stuff published before that date, were there things that Yaqeen Institute published that did not adhere to Islamic orthodoxy? Based on our review, yes, and that is why some of those pieces have since been removed, and notes have gone out to say this does not, though it was published by Yaqeen Institute at one point, this does not adhere to our current standards of orthodoxy. I see, so those standards have changed over time, and you're saying basically, or the implication of what you're saying is that from maybe late 2020 on, this is something where you can identify that the current process is in place, and it works, and you can basically be sure within, you know, and everybody makes the mistakes, but that there is a process that is going to give credibility to the things that Yaqeen Institute
publishes that they adhere to Islamic orthodoxy. So, for full transparency, yes, that process exists for research papers, alhamdulillah, not all the way for podcasts, for other video content, just because of bandwidth, so, but we are putting processes in place for the future to also, and it's not to say we do have some, but I'm saying for every research piece, every single one, it goes through an orthodoxy check. Not every single podcast, not every single video series, not goes through that same process, but some of them do. I see, so it's all, it's in process, and I think that, you know, and I said this to Dr. Wehmer when I had him on last week, that there's a lot of exciting things to look forward to, and that the process keeps developing, and the content keeps developing, and yeah, I mean. Well, okay, so, so if I can just, if I can just comment on that, because I know, I know you've got to close out, but I do think this, I think that, I think we have a great responsibility, myself, personally, you, and all of us who are involved in a research team, we have a great responsibility in front of Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala, because Yaqeen Institute does have influence, you know, in, in many different arenas, and with, with influence comes responsibility, that the information that we are putting out is credible information, it's not misleading people, it is leading people the right way, insha'Allah ta'ala, and from the dua of the Prophet ﷺ, at the, at the very end of, when, when he would ask Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala to see his face, he would say, Allahumma zayinna bi ziynatin iman, wa ja'alna hudatan muhtadeen. Right, so, O Allah, beautify us, adorn us with the, with the, with the beauty of faith, and make us from amongst the guided who guide others, right, and so this is, this is ultimately what we're trying to do, we're trying
to be amongst those who, bi'idhnillahi ta'ala, help to guide others to the beauty of this Deen of Islam, and to hold on to it, and to give them certitude, and, and certainty in their faith, and to nurture that yaqeen within them, bi'idhnillahi ta'ala. Ameen, masha'Allah. Well, that's, I think, the best point that we could possibly end this on. Shaykh Tahir, I really appreciate your time, and your insight, as always, and we look forward to having you on many more times, insha'Allah ta'ala. Bi'idhnillahi, bi'idhnillahi, it would be my pleasure. May Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala write for us what's best in this life and the next. Wallahu a'lamu sallahu wa sallam wa barakana nabina Muhammad. As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu, Shaykh Tahir. Wa alaykum as-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu, Shaykh Tahir. Wa alaykum as-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu, Shaykh Tahir. Wa alaykum as-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu, Shaykh Tahir.
Welcome back!
Bookmark content
Download resources easily
Manage your donations
Track your spiritual growth
1 items
1 items
1 items
25 items
50 items
9 items
