Shadee Elmasry – The Different Levels of Errors in Aqida
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
Matters that did not come up in the
time of the prophet and the companions,
and now we have to answer them. Imam
Ahmed was extremely
skeptical about this, and he
found it blameworthy.
So, again, now that alright. We got issues
that never came up in the time of
the prophet, peace be upon. We have to
write them down. We gotta answer them. And
this is what he's gonna bring up. And.
So Imam Ahmed and he says
and a small group said no to all
of this.
Matters related to
that what is what are the necessary be
beliefs
that a Muslim must have? What would put
a person out of Islam altogether if he
rejected it? What would put him outside of
if he rejected it? What would simply make
him wrong if he rejected it? And what
is not necessary to believe at all?
It's like a belief that you may have
and may not have. So even in matters
of,
not all errors are the same, and this
is a big issue when you look at,
online, people,
may misunderstand
certain things.
Errors in are not all the same.
Some errors in will put you outside of
Islam. That's that which is explicit
and widespread.
And there are errors that
would you would not put you out of
Islam, but would put you outside of Al
Sunnah. And examples of those are that which
is
However,
not
It's not widespread.
You need to have some kind of,
study to know this. But once you do
know it, it's not up for discussion.
Means something not up for discussion.
It only has one meaning.
Then there are matters that are
its its meaning
may
have
possible meanings,
and then you interpreted it outside that meaning.
And it's not.
So as a result of that, if you
go against it, you'd just be wrong, but
it doesn't remove you from and
definitely doesn't remove you from Islam. What does
it mean to be removed from? It means
you're an innovator. You're a heretic. Your good
deeds don't count. You're a Muslim. We treat
you like a Muslim,
but your good deeds are not counting until
you fix your belief.
These are the sects of Islam. And then
there are a hadith
that are maybe it could be weak.
Could be a weak hadith, but it pertains
to matters of belief. It's not obligatory
to believe in it at all. You may
believe in it. You may not believe in
it. There's a gradation
in error. Not all errors are the same,
and that's the big
it's so simplistic and simple to say, alright.
If it's in the Quran, let's believe it.
If it's not, it's not. Yeah. That's simplistic.
But in the Quran itself has matters that
are.
Of course,
it's
the boot. We know it's a verse of
Quran, but what it means can mean different
things.
Not everything of the Quran has only one
possible meaning.
Let's continue.
And
and their speech in the blame blameworthiness
of theological
disputation
is well known, he says.
All of and Ahmed Ibnhamba. They all
attacked
the initial dialectical
theologians.
Why is that? Because the dialect the initial
people who wanted to respond,
to these new questions that came up were
the.
So what they were blaming were the was
the
departure
of the
from
Islamic teachings that are in the Quran and
in the Hadith.
The concept of answering back to atheists, answering
back to philosophers, answering back to innovators is
not what they disagreed upon.
They didn't differ upon that.
K. He says here,
Alright. The first the the the origin, the
is
that they spoke about matters
that the prophet, peace be upon, didn't speak
about and the companions didn't speak about. And
Malik said in their time, in the time
of the prophet, there were no innovations at
all.
Hence, there was no precedent of how to
go about to do this.
Malik himself says in the time of the
prophet peace upon him, there was no innovation.
In The time of this Abu Bakr and
Omar, there was no innovation. So now when
Muslims now have heretics and they need to
respond, and they are responding, the 1st generation
to do this, the 1st group to do
this, the they went astray in doing so.
How did they go astray? He says here,
they mixed
they they confused and mixed
matters of religion
with the philosophy of the Greeks.
And who is this? The.
And they mixed the Greek thought with their
thought and then they made what the philosophers
said to be an, which would the assumptions
of the philosophers.
The assumptions of the philosophers
to be an. If a hadith or a
verse contradicted that, they went with the philosophers,
and they pushed away the verse and the
hadith. And they held to much high esteem
the Greek logicians
and the Greek philosophers.
And they said, this is the origin of
all knowledge.
And whoever doesn't know this stuff is an
ami and an ignoramus.
So that is why in the time of
the 4 imams,
dialectical theology,
was innovation because the because of their
methodology
and their results,
not because of the concept that we need
to answer atheists and we need to answer
heretics.
That's not the issue.
Alright? So let's continue here.
So he says here, when it is a
dire need and a necessity
to answer people,
then
suffice yourself
with
the texts. In other words, you cannot contradict
our texts of Quran and Hadith when answering
these people and establishing the principles of how
to answer them, and that's what the theologians
eventually did.