علم الأسماء الحسنىCreed Theology Sects and Religious Doctrines

The science of the Most Beautiful Names of God

and their secrets and the particular properties of their effects. al-Boonee said: Through them every request is attained and every desired thing is reached.

By constant adherence to them, their fruits, the manifest disclosures, and access to the secrets of the unseen become evident.

As for their worldly benefit, it includes acceptance among people, awe and veneration, blessings in provision, deference to one's word, compliance with one's command, and the silencing of tongues so that they answer only with good, together with other manifest effects, by God's permission, in meaning and in outward form. This is a great science whose validity is denied neither by the Law nor by reason.[Edition footnote 1] End quote. It will be discussed under the science of letters.

[Edition footnote 1] See also the discussions of the Most Beautiful Names of God in Fath al-Baaree, al-Talkhees, Misk al-Khitaam, and Nayl al-Awtaar. al-Bayhaqee treated their collection together with the divine attributes at length in Kitaab al-Asmaa' wa-l-Sifaat, and Mawlaanaa Muhammad 'Abd al-Samad al-Fashaawaree, may his Lord preserve him, gave the matter an excellent extended treatment.

The science of the foundations of religion

Called theology; it is discussed under the letter kaaf.

Al-Arneeqee said: It is a science through which one is able to establish religious doctrines by presenting proofs for them and dispelling objections to them.

Among the earlier scholars, its subject was the Essence of God, exalted is He, and His attributes, because the original aim of theology is knowledge of Him and His attributes. Since its principles required knowledge of the states of originated things, later scholars incorporated those discussions into theology, so that the highest of the religious sciences would not need the philosophical sciences. They therefore made its subject existent things insofar as they exist, distinguishing it from philosophy by the fact that theology investigates according to the rule of Islam, whereas philosophy proceeds according to the dictates of reason.

When later scholars recognized its need for knowledge of the states of proofs and the rules of syllogisms, and avoided making the highest religious science dependent on logic, they made its subject the known insofar as it bears, closely or remotely, upon the establishment of religious doctrines.

They stipulated that theology must first take doctrine from the Book and the Sunnah and then establish it through rational proofs. End quote.

He then transmitted the imams' objections to theology, detailing the statements of the four imams and explaining at length the emergence of the Mu'tazila and Aboo al-Hasan al-Ash'aree's refutation of them. He said: At that point, the doctrines transmitted in the Book and the Sunnah became manifest, and the principles of theology passed from the hands of the Mu'tazila into the hands of the People of the Sunnah and the Community. End quote.

He then discussed Aboo Mansoor al-Maatureedee and his books on doctrine.

I say: The books in this science are exceedingly numerous, and the finest are the books of the traditionists establishing doctrine in the manner transmitted from the Book and the Sunnah.

Among the works refuting the theologians are the books of Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyya—may God have mercy on him—the books of his student, the hadeeth master Ibn al-Qayyim, and al-Rawdh al-Baasim fee al-Dhab 'an Sunnat Abee al-Qaasim by the imaam Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem al-Wazeer al-Yamanee.

There is also al-Saffaareenee's work, a large volume. God has favored me with those beneficial books, a sufficient and complete favor. Before that I wrote a treatise entitled Qasd al-Sabeel ilaa Dhamm al-Kalaam wa-l-Ta'weel, which is very valuable. This is not the place for an extended discussion of the condemnation of theology and the praise of the doctrines of the noble People of Hadeeth.

In Kashshaaf Istilaahaat al-Funoon it is said: As for the reason it is called kalaam, it is because it produces the ability to speak about religious matters; or because its chapters were originally headed “discussion of such-and-such”; or because the question of kalaam is its most famous component, so that disputation over it became widespread. He said:

Aboo Haneefa—may God have mercy on him—called it “the greater jurisprudence.”

In Majma' al-Sulook it is also called the science of examination and inference.

It is also called the science of divine unity and attributes.

In al-Taftaazaanee's commentary on the Articles of Faith: The science concerned with the subsidiary, practical rulings is called the science of the laws and rulings; and that concerned with the foundational, doctrinal rulings is called the science of divine unity and attributes. End quote.

He then gave the definition of this science mentioned above and explained the benefits of the qualifications contained in that definition.

He said: Its subject is sciences.

Al-Urmawee said: The Essence of God, exalted is He.

A group, including al-Ghazaalee, said: Its subject is existent things insofar as they exist, that is, insofar as they are unrestricted by anything.

Its benefit and aim are ascent from the lowland of imitation to the summit of certainty; guiding those who seek guidance by clarifying the proof for them; compelling the obstinate by establishing the proof against them; preserving the principles of religion from being shaken by the objections of falsifiers; and making the religious sciences rest upon it, since it is their foundation and their acquisition ultimately returns to it. Until the existence of a knowing, powerful Creator, who charges beings with responsibility, sends messengers, and reveals books, is established, neither Qur'aanic exegesis nor jurisprudence and its principles can be conceived. All of them depend upon theology and draw from it; undertaking them without it is like building without a foundation.

The ultimate end of all these matters is attainment of happiness in both abodes. From this the rank—and thus the nobility—of theology becomes clear, for the nobility of the end entails the nobility of the science. Its proofs are also certain: plain reason judges them, and revelation confirms them. This testimony of reason, supported by revelation, is the strongest possible bond, since no doubt then remains concerning the soundness of the proof.

As for its questions, which are its objectives, they comprise every theoretical judgment concerning a known object. Theology is the supreme science, since all the religious sciences terminate in it, and their subjects and aspects are established within it. It has no principles that must be explained in another religious or nonreligious science. Rather, its principles are either self-evident or explained within it; from one perspective they are its questions, and from another they are principles for other questions that do not depend upon them, lest circularity result. Even if books of theology contain questions upon which the establishment of doctrines in the Book does not depend, the other religious sciences draw upon theology, while it draws upon none. It is therefore, in general, the head of the religious sciences. The scholars of Islam recorded the establishment of religious doctrines concerning the Creator, His attributes and acts, and the related discussions of prophecy and resurrection, as a science through which the word of truth in these matters could be exalted; they refused to make themselves dependent in it upon any other science.

They therefore took its subject in a form embracing those doctrines and the theoretical discussions upon which they depend, whether the dependence concerned the material of their proofs or their forms.

They made all of this the desired objectives of their science, so that it became a science self-sufficient in itself and dependent on no other, with no principles requiring explanation in another science. This is the gist of what appears in Sharh al-Mawaaqif. End quote.

For this topic, see al-'Awaasim wa-l-Qawaasim by the sayyid Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem al-Wazeer al-Yamanee—may God have mercy on him; it will make error and correctness clear to you.

The science of the signs of prophecy

It concerns preliminary signs, verbal and practical miracles, and similar matters; how these indicate prophecy; the distinction between them and magic; and the discernment of the truthful from the false.

Its subject and aim are very evident, and its benefit is among the greatest benefits.

Many works have been composed in this science, but none is more beneficial or finer than A'laam al-Nubuwwa by the imaam Shaykh Aboo al-Hasan 'Alee ibn Muhammad ibn Habeeb al-Maawardee, one of the leading Shaafi'ee jurists. He died in 450 AH at the age of eighty-six, as mentioned in Madeenat al-'Uloom.

The science of theology

Aboo al-Khayr said in al-Mawdhoo'aat: It is a science through which one can establish religious doctrines by presenting proofs for them and dispelling objections to them. Among earlier scholars its subject was the Essence of God, Glorified and Exalted, and His attributes. It was also said that its subject is existent things insofar as they exist.

Among later scholars its subject is the known insofar as it bears, closely or remotely, upon the establishment of religious doctrines; by “religious” they meant doctrines ascribed to the religion of our Prophet Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace. End of abridgment.

The books composed on it are numerous; the author of Kashf al-Dhunoon listed them.

The imaam and learned master Muhammad ibn al-Wazeer wrote Tarjeeh Asaaleeb al-Qur'aan li-Ahl al-Eemaan 'alaa Asaaleeb al-Yoonaan wa-Bayaan Dhaalika bi-Ijmaa' al-A'yaan bi-Awdhah al-Tibyaan and al-Burhaan al-Qaati' fee Ithbaat al-Saani' wa-Jamee' maa Jaa'at bihi al-Sharaa'i'. In these two books he refuted the theologians and theology, establishing that all the questions of this science are established by the Sunnah and the Qur'aan and that, alongside them, there is no need for the theologians' laws and theological principles. Both are exceedingly valuable. How excellent is what al-Ghazaalee said in al-Ihyaa':

The substance of the useful proofs contained in theology is already contained in the Qur'aan and the reports. Anything beyond them is either blameworthy disputation, which is an innovation, or contentious wrangling through attachment to the contradictions of the sects and the prolonged transmission of opinions, most of which are absurdities and ravings rejected by sound natures and disliked by hearing. Some of it is engagement with matters unrelated to religion, none of which was familiar in the first age; engaging in it altogether was an innovation. End quote.

Ibn Khaldoon said: Theology is a science that contains argumentation for the doctrines of faith by rational proofs and refutation of innovators who have deviated in doctrine from the schools of the early generations and the People of the Sunnah. The secret of these doctrines of faith is divine unity. Let us first present here a subtle rational proof that reveals divine unity by the nearest routes and means; then we shall return to examining its science, what it investigates, the way it arose within the religious community, and what prompted its establishment.

We say: Every event in the world of existent things—whether an event in substances or in human and animal acts—must have preceding causes through which it occurs in the customary order and by which its existence is completed. Each of these causes is itself originated and must therefore have other causes. Those causes continue ascending until they terminate at the Cause of causes, their Originator and Creator—Glorified is He; there is no god but Him. As they ascend, these causes expand and multiply in length and breadth, and reason is bewildered in perceiving and enumerating them. They can therefore be encompassed only by all-encompassing knowledge, especially human and animal acts. Among their observable causes are purpose and volition, for an act is not completed without willing it and intending it. Purposes and volitions are psychic matters generally arising from prior conceptions that follow one another; those conceptions are the causes of intending an act, and the causes of those conceptions may be other conceptions. Everything that occurs in the soul as conception has an unknown cause: no one observes the beginnings of psychic matters or their ordering. They are things God casts into thought, one following another. A human being is incapable of knowing their beginnings and ends, and generally knows only the natural, manifest causes whose perceptions occur according to an ordered system, because the soul has no circumscribed nature beneath its own level.

As for conceptions, their range is wider than the soul, because they belong to the intellect, which is above the soul's level. The intellect therefore fails to perceive many of them, let alone encompass them. Consider in this the wisdom of the Lawgiver's prohibition against looking at causes and stopping with them: it is a valley in which thought wanders without gaining anything of value or reaching truth: “Say: God; then leave them to play in their discourse.” It may even stop there and fail to ascend beyond it, causing its foot to slip and making it one of the astray and ruined. We seek refuge in God from deprivation and manifest loss. Do not suppose that stopping there, or returning from it, lies within your power and choice; it is a color that comes over the soul and a hue strengthened by engaging with causes in a measure unknown to us. Had we known that measure, we would have guarded against it. Let us therefore guard against it by turning our gaze from causes altogether. Moreover, the manner in which these causes affect many of their effects is unknown, since they are known only through custom, by the association of the observed with what is outwardly apparent. The reality and manner of causation are unknown: “You have been given only a little knowledge.” We were therefore commanded to disregard and cancel them altogether and turn toward the Cause of all causes, their Agent and Originator, so that the quality of divine unity might take root in the soul, as taught to us by the Lawgiver, who knows best the interests of our religion and the paths of our happiness because He knows what lies beyond sensory perception. The Prophet, may God bless him and his family and grant him peace, said:

“Whoever dies bearing witness that there is no god but God will enter Paradise.” If he stops at those causes, he has been cut off and the word of unbelief has become due upon him. If he sails through the sea of examining and investigating them, their causes, and their effects one by one, I guarantee that he will return only in disappointment. The Lawgiver therefore forbade us to examine causes and commanded absolute divine unity: “Say: He is God, One; God, the Self-Sufficient; He neither begets nor is born; nor is there anyone comparable to Him.” Do not trust what thought claims—that it can encompass existent things and their causes and grasp the entirety of existence in detail; declare its judgment in this matter foolish.

Know that, in the first instance, existence appears to every perceiver confined to his perceptions and not exceeding them, although reality is otherwise and truth lies beyond them. Do you not see how existence is confined for the deaf to the four sensible things and the intelligible, while the class of audible things falls from his existence? The blind likewise loses the class of visible things. Were it not for the imitation of their ancestors that leads them to recognize these classes, they would not recognize them by the demands of their nature and manner of perception. If a mute animal were questioned and could speak, we would find it denying intelligibles and regarding them as wholly nonexistent. Once you know this, perhaps there is a kind of perception other than our perceptions, for our perceptions are created and originated, and God's creation is greater than the creation of human beings. The unknown limits of existence are broader than this: “God encompasses them from behind.” Distrust your perception and its objects when you confine existence, and follow what the Lawgiver commands you in belief and action. He is more concerned for your happiness and knows better what benefits you, because He is from a level above your perception and a range wider than the range of your intellect. This does not impugn the intellect or its perceptions: the intellect is a sound balance and its judgments are certain and truthful. Yet do not expect it to weigh matters of divine unity, the Hereafter, the reality of prophecy, the realities of the divine attributes, or anything beyond its level. That is expecting the impossible, like a man who sees the balance used to weigh gold and hopes to weigh mountains with it. The balance is not thereby false in its judgments; rather, the intellect stops at its limit and does not exceed its level, lest it imagine that it can encompass God and His attributes, although it is one atom among the atoms of existence produced by Him. Notice this error in those who give precedence to reason over transmitted revelation in such matters, and the deficiency of their understanding and collapse of their judgment. When this is clear, perhaps causes, as they ascend beyond the range of our perception and existence, cease to be perceptible; reason then wanders in the desert of illusions, is bewildered, and comes to a halt. Divine unity is therefore incapacity to perceive causes and the manner of their effects, entrusting them to their Creator, who encompasses them, for there is no agent besides Him. They all ascend to Him and return to His power. Our knowledge of Him is only insofar as we proceed from Him. This is the meaning of what is transmitted from some of the truthful ones: incapacity to perceive is perception.

In this divine unity, what matters is not faith alone as a judgmental assent, for that is merely an act of the mind; perfection consists in acquiring from it a quality by which the soul is formed. Likewise, the aim of works and acts of worship is to acquire a habit of obedience and submission and to empty the heart of the distractions of everything besides the object of worship, until the seeker and wayfarer becomes godly.

The difference between a state and knowledge in matters of doctrine is the difference between speaking of a quality and being characterized by it.

Its explanation is that many people know that showing mercy to an orphan or poor person is an act of devotion to God and recommended by Him; they say so, acknowledge it, and cite its basis in the Law. Yet if they saw an orphan or poor person from among the weak, they would flee from him and disdain to touch him in compassion, let alone undertake the further stations of tenderness, affection, and charity.

Such a person has attained only the station of knowledge concerning mercy toward the orphan, not the station of state and characterization. Others, alongside knowledge and acknowledgment that mercy toward the poor is devotion to God, attain a station higher than the first: characterization by mercy and acquisition of its habit. When one of them sees an orphan or poor person, he hastens to him, touches him, and seeks reward in compassion toward him; he can scarcely endure to refrain, even if he is driven away. He then gives charity from whatever he has at hand. The same applies to your knowledge of divine unity together with being characterized by it. Characterization is not necessarily a more firmly founded structure than the knowledge acquired before it, nor does it arise from knowledge alone. Action must occur and be repeated without limit until the habit takes root and characterization is acquired. Through this comes the second knowledge, beneficial in the Hereafter. Mere knowledge without characterization has little benefit; it is the knowledge of most speculative thinkers. What is sought is knowledge of the state, arising from habit.

Know that, according to the Lawgiver, perfection in everything imposed upon us lies in this. In what we are asked to believe, perfection lies in the second knowledge acquired through characterization; in the acts of worship we are asked to perform, perfection lies in acquiring characterization and realizing it. Turning toward worship and persevering in it produces this noble fruit. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said concerning the summit of worship: “The delight of my eye has been placed in prayer.” Prayer became for him a quality and state in which he found the utmost pleasure and delight. How far this is from the prayer of ordinary people and those for whom it is said: “So woe to those who pray, those who are heedless of their prayer.” O God, grant us success and guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not those who have incurred wrath, nor those who are astray.

From all that we have established, it is clear that what is sought in every obligation is the acquisition of a firmly rooted quality in the soul, from which arises an immediate knowledge of the soul: divine unity, the doctrine of faith, through which happiness is attained. This applies equally to obligations of the heart and of the body. It follows that faith, which is the root and fountainhead of all obligations, has levels. The first is assent of the heart corresponding to the tongue.

The highest is that a quality arising from the heart's assent, together with the action that follows it, comes to dominate the heart, so that all outward acts follow it and every action enters into obedience to that faithful assent.

This is the highest level of faith, complete faith, with which the believer commits neither minor nor major sin. Once the habit has been acquired and firmly rooted, it prevents deviation from its paths for even an instant. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said:

“The fornicator does not commit fornication while he is a believer.” In the hadeeth of Heraclius, when he asked Aboo Sufyaan ibn Harb about the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and his condition, he asked about the Prophet's Companions: “Does any of them renounce his religion out of displeasure with it?” He replied: “No.” He said: “Such is faith when its joy enters the hearts.”

Its meaning is that once the habit of faith settles, it becomes difficult for the soul to oppose it, as with all habits once established: they acquire the force of innate disposition and nature. This is the high rank of faith and the second rank of protection from error. Protection is necessarily given to prophets beforehand; here it is acquired by believers as a consequence of their works and assent. Through this habit and its rootedness, faith differs in degree, as appears in the statements of the early generations and in the headings of al-Bukhaaree's chapter on faith, including that faith is word and deed, that it increases and decreases, that prayer and fasting are part of faith, that voluntary Ramadan worship is part of faith,[Edition footnote 1] and that modesty is part of faith. All of this refers to the complete faith mentioned above and to its habit; it is active faith.

As for assent, which is its first level, those who treated the final term as a name for the whole and applied it to this habit—which is complete faith—recognized its variation. This does not undermine the unity of its first reality, assent, since assent exists at every level. It is the least to which the name faith applies, the thing that discharges one from unbelief, and the dividing line between unbeliever and Muslim; nothing less than it suffices. In itself it is one undifferentiated reality. Variation occurs in the state arising from works, as we have said. Understand this.

Know that the Lawgiver described this faith at the first level, which is assent, and specified matters that we are required to affirm with our hearts and hold as beliefs within ourselves, while acknowledging them with our tongues. These are the doctrines established in religion. When asked about faith, the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “That you believe in God, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day, and that you believe in the divine decree, its good and its evil.” These are the doctrines of faith established in theology.

Let us indicate them briefly, so that the reality of this discipline and the manner of its emergence may become clear.

Know that when the Lawgiver commanded us to believe in this Creator, to whom He referred all acts and whom He made their sole agent, as explained above, and informed us that our salvation at the approach of death lies in this faith, He did not acquaint us with the inner reality of this worshiped Creator, for that is beyond our perception and above our level.

[Edition footnote 1] That is, voluntary night prayer in Ramadan.

He therefore first charged us to believe that His Essence is transcendent and unlike created beings; otherwise He could not truly be their Creator, since there would be no distinction on that premise. He then charged us to declare Him free of attributes of deficiency, lest He resemble created beings; to affirm His unity, for otherwise creation could not be completed because of mutual impediment; and to believe that He is knowing and powerful, for through this acts are completed, as is evident from the perfection of unity and creation.

He is willing, for otherwise none of the created things would be specified.

He determines every existent thing, for otherwise willing would itself be originated.

And that He will restore us after death.

Then we must believe in the sending of messengers, so that we may be saved from the misery of this return, whose states differ between misery and happiness, of which we have no independent knowledge. This is the completion of His kindness to us: He grants us knowledge of it, clarifies the two paths, and teaches that Paradise is for bliss and Hellfire for punishment.

These are the principal doctrines of faith, supported by rational proofs; their proofs in the Book and the Sunnah are numerous. The early generations took them from those proofs, the scholars guided people to them, and the imams verified them. Afterwards, however, disagreement arose concerning the details of these doctrines, most often because of ambiguous verses, and this led to disputation and debate. Rational argument was added to transmitted revelation, and theology thereby arose. We shall explain this summary in detail.

The Qur'aan contains many verses describing the worshiped One in manifest, absolute transcendence, with no need for interpretation. They are all negations and explicit in their subject. It was therefore necessary to believe them, and the statements of the Lawgiver—peace and blessings be upon him—and of the Companions and Successors interpreted them according to their apparent meaning.

The Qur'aan also contains a few other verses that suggest resemblance, sometimes in the Essence and sometimes in the attributes.

The early generations gave precedence to the proofs of transcendence because they are numerous and clear in indication. They knew that resemblance was impossible and judged that the verses were the speech of God; they believed in them without investigating or interpreting their meaning. This is the meaning of the statement made by many of them, “Read them as they came”: believe that they are from God and do not engage in interpreting or explaining them, since they may be a trial and one must stop and submit to it.

Innovators of their time diverged, following the ambiguous verses and plunging deeply into resemblance.

One group introduced resemblance into the Essence by affirming hand, foot, and face according to the apparent sense of reports to that effect. They thereby fell into outright corporealism and contradicted the verses of absolute transcendence, which are more numerous and clearer in meaning. The intelligibility of a body entails deficiency and need, so giving precedence to the verses of negation in absolute transcendence—which are more numerous and clearer—is more appropriate than clinging to these apparent senses, from which we have no need. They reconciled the two proofs through interpretation, then fled from the ugliness of their position by saying, “A body unlike bodies.” This does not remove the problem, for it is a contradictory combination of negation and affirmation. If the term body has one intelligible meaning, it is a body; if they distinguish between the two and deny the familiar intelligibility, they agree with us in transcendence, leaving only their making the word body one of His names, something that requires scriptural authorization.

Another group introduced resemblance into the attributes by affirming forehead, enthronement, descent, voice, letter, and similar things. Their position led to corporealism, and they took refuge, like the first group, in statements such as “a voice unlike voices,” “a direction unlike directions,” and “a descent unlike descents,” meaning unlike those of bodies. The same response that refuted the first group refutes them. Nothing remains in these apparent texts except the beliefs and positions of the early generations: to believe in them as they are, lest negation erase their meanings even though they are soundly established in the Qur'aan. Thus consider the creed of Ibn Abee Zayd's Risaala, his Mukhtasar, and the book of the hadeeth master Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and others. They approach this meaning; do not overlook the indications of it throughout their words.

When the sciences and crafts multiplied and people became eager to write and investigate every field, and the theologians composed works on transcendence, the innovation of the Mu'tazila arose: they generalized this transcendence throughout the verses of negation.

They denied the attributes of meaning—knowledge, power, will, and life—as additional to their effects, claiming that this would entail a plurality of the eternal. This is refuted by saying that the attributes are neither identical with the Essence nor other than it.

They denied hearing and sight because they are accidents of bodies. This is refuted because the meaning of the terms does not require corporeality; they signify simply perception of what is heard or seen.

They denied speech by analogy with hearing and sight, failing to understand the attribute of speech subsisting in the soul. They consequently declared the Qur'aan created, an innovation explicitly opposed by the early generations. The harm of this innovation became grave; some caliphs learned it from their imams and imposed it upon the people, while the imams of the early generations opposed them. Because of this opposition, the lives and blood of many were deemed lawful. This prompted the People of the Sunnah to rise with rational proofs for these doctrines, striking back at the heart of the innovations. Shaykh Aboo al-Hasan al-Ash'aree, the foremost of the theologians, undertook this task. He took a middle course: he denied resemblance, affirmed the attributes of meaning, and restricted transcendence to the scope assigned it by the early generations, supported by proofs that particularize its generality. He affirmed the four attributes of meaning, hearing, sight, and speech subsisting in the soul through transmitted and rational evidence. He refuted the innovators on all these points and debated with them the principles they had prepared for their innovations, including the claims concerning what is beneficial and most beneficial and concerning moral approval and disapproval. He completed the doctrines concerning the sending of messengers, the states of Paradise and Hell, reward and punishment, and added discussion of the imamate. When the innovation of the Imaamiyya appeared, claiming that the imamate was a doctrine of faith and that the Prophet must appoint its holder—and that the community must fulfill this duty—the theologians judged that the utmost reality of the imamate was a communal matter of expediency, not a doctrine. They therefore appended it to the questions of this discipline and called the whole collection theology.

This was because it contains debate against innovations, which is pure discourse and does not return to practice.

It was also because the cause of its establishment and investigation was their dispute over affirming speech subsisting in the soul.

The followers of Shaykh Aboo al-Hasan al-Ash'aree became numerous. His student Ibn Mujaahid and others followed his method, and the qaadhee Aboo Bakr al-Baaqillaanee learned from them. He became the leading representative of their method, refined it, and established the rational premises upon which their proofs and investigations depended, such as affirming the indivisible atom and the void, that an accident cannot subsist in an accident, that it does not remain for two moments, and similar matters. He made these principles subordinate to the doctrines of faith and required belief in them because the proofs depended upon them.

He held that the invalidity of a proof indicates the invalidity of what it proves. He arranged this method and made it one of the finest theoretical arts and religious sciences. Yet the formal structures by which syllogisms are assessed were not then manifest in the religious community. Even when something of them appeared, the theologians did not adopt it because of its association with philosophical sciences wholly distinct from religious doctrine; for that reason they abandoned it.

After Aboo Bakr al-Baaqillaanee came Imaam al-Haramayn Aboo al-Ma'aalee. He dictated al-Shaamil on this method and expanded its discussion, then abridged it in al-Irshaad, which people adopted as an authoritative guide to their doctrines. Thereafter logic spread through the religious community. People studied it and distinguished it from philosophy by saying that it was merely a law and measure for proofs, by which proofs from philosophy could be conducted just as proofs from other disciplines could.

They then examined the earlier theologians' principles and premises and contradicted many of them with the proofs that led to this conclusion. Much of those principles may have been borrowed from philosophers' discussions of physics and metaphysics. When they subjected them to the measure of logic, it led them back to those principles, but they did not hold that invalidity of a proof entailed invalidity of what it proved, as al-Baaqillaanee had. Their method therefore became, in their terminology, distinct from the first and was called the method of the later scholars. They sometimes included refutations of philosophers concerning their departures from the doctrines of faith, treating them as opponents because many of the innovators' doctrines resembled theirs.

The first to write theology in this manner was al-Ghazaalee—may God have mercy on him. The imaam Ibn al-Khateeb and a group followed him, imitating their method. Later scholars then plunged more deeply into mixing theology with philosophical books, and the subject of the two sciences became confused for them; they took it to be one because of the resemblance between their questions.

Know that theologians generally infer the existence and attributes of the Creator from existent things and their states. This is their usual kind of inference. The natural body is investigated by the philosopher in physics, and it is one of these existent things, but the philosopher's investigation differs from that of the theologian: the philosopher considers the body insofar as it moves and rests.

The theologian considers it insofar as it indicates an agent.

Likewise, the philosopher's investigation in metaphysics concerns absolute existence and what it entails by its essence.

The theologian's investigation concerns existence insofar as it indicates an originator. In sum, according to its practitioners, the subject of theology is the doctrines of faith, assumed to be sound on the basis of revelation, insofar as rational proofs can be used to establish them, innovations can be removed, and doubts and objections concerning those doctrines can be dispelled.

If you consider how this discipline arose and how people's discussion of it progressed from one generation to another—each assuming the doctrines sound and mobilizing proofs and arguments—you will understand what we have established for you concerning its subject and that it does not exceed it.

These two methods became confused among later scholars, and theological questions became mixed with philosophical questions, so that neither discipline could be distinguished from the other and students could not obtain either one from their books. This is what al-Baydhaawee did in al-Tawaali' and what the later Persian scholars did in all their works. Some students of knowledge may nevertheless pursue this method to learn the schools and master argumentation, which is abundant in it.

Following the method of the early generations in the doctrines of theology means only the old method of the theologians, whose foundation is al-Irshaad and works that followed its model.

Whoever wishes to include refutation of philosophers in his doctrines should turn to the books of al-Ghazaalee and Ibn al-Khateeb. Although they sometimes depart from the old terminology, their books do not contain the confusion of questions and ambiguity of subject found in the method of the later scholars after them.

In general, it should be known that this science, theology, is not necessary in this age for a student of knowledge. The atheists and innovators have disappeared, and the imams of the People of the Sunnah have spared us their concern through what they wrote and compiled. They needed rational proofs when they defended and supported the faith; now nothing remains of them except discourse in which the Creator is declared transcendent from many of its misleading implications and unrestricted expressions.

Al-Junayd—may God have mercy on him—was once asked about a group of theologians he passed who were engrossed in the subject. He said: “Who are these?” He was told: “People who declare God transcendent, by proofs, above originated attributes and marks of deficiency.” He replied: “To deny a defect where a defect is impossible is itself a defect.”

Yet its benefit for individuals and students of knowledge remains significant, for it is not fitting that one who carries the Sunnah should be ignorant of the rational proofs for its doctrines. God is the Protector of the believers.

The science of the resurrection

That is, the abode of the Hereafter.[Edition footnote 1]

[Edition footnote 1] al-Suyootee wrote a book on it entitled al-Budoor al-Saafira fee Ahwaal al-Aakhira, as well as Sharh al-Sudoor fee Ahwaal al-Quboor; there are also Rooh al-Rooh by the hadeeth master Ibn al-Qayyim, Salaah al-Arwaah, Mir'aat al-Aakhira, and others. Haafidh 'Alee Husayn, the author of this book, may God preserve him.

The science of the doctrines of the sects

It is a science that investigates and records the false schools connected with doctrines concerning God. According to what our Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, reported concerning this community, they number seventy-two sects.

Its subject, aim, purpose, and benefit are very evident. The qaadhee 'Adhud al-Deen undertook to detail its summaries at the end of al-Mawaaqif in theology. Among those who recorded all the sectarian schools is Muhammad al-Shahrastaanee in al-Milal wa-l-Nihal. He also wrote Nihaayat al-Aqdaam fee 'Ilm al-Kalaam, al-Manaahij wa-l-Bayyinaat, al-Musaara'a, and Talkhees al-Aqsaam li-Madhaahib al-Anaam.

Shahrastaan is a city in Khurasan. We have a concise book explaining the sects of Islam, entitled Khub'at al-Akwaan fee Iftiraaq al-Umam 'alaa al-Madhaahib wa-l-Adyaan. It is extremely valuable and useful. May God grant us success in speaking the truth and following the true school; keep our feet from slipping away from the straight path, the clear and strong method, the upright Prophetic way, and the evident Sunnee path; and make it easy for us to follow the guidance of His Prophet Muhammad, follow those who followed his Sunnah, chose his Law, and modeled themselves on his conduct. O God, amen.

The science of the unity of being

It has been said that some of its expressions lie beyond the range of reason and that their apparent meanings conflict with the immediate sense of transmitted revelation. They have therefore become a cause of discord among people, especially this question. Because of it, some people declare others unbelievers; it generates enmity and hatred among groups. Some accept it and reject its opposite, while others deny it and declare its proponent an unbeliever. Yet most people understand it through conjecture and supposition, far from verifying what its proponents intended with certainty. Thus neither rejection nor acceptance is sound, and its only yield is mutual hatred and envy. Works and treatises have been composed on it, including:

The treatise of Mawlaanaa Jaamee and the treatise of Badr al-Deen Zaada. This concludes what is found in Kashf al-Dhunoon.

I say: The correct course in this matter is to refrain from investigating this question and similar questions, into which the Companions and Successors did not enter, nor did the early generations and their righteous imams. The Noble Book did not mention them, either by indication or allusion; the purified Sunnah did not report them, either explicitly or by implication; and the verifying scholars, early and late, did not make them their subject. Only individuals among the Sufis, who have no substantial connection with formal study or the practice of the prophetic sciences, have clung to them. May God have mercy on the person who follows the apparent meaning of the Qur'aan and hadeeth, does not deviate from the straight path, protects himself from falling into riddles and puzzles, and avoids drowning in seas of error and forbidden matters.

The finest discussion by the scholars of the Indian region on this question is that of Shaykh Ahmad al-Suhrawardee, known as the renewer of the second millennium—may God have mercy on him—followed by that of Shaah Walee Allaah al-Dihlawee, the hadeeth scholar, and then the words of their complete scholarly followers. It is a description of a description, and in it lies the safeguarding of faith and doctrine from the dominance of desire and corruption. Through God comes success.