By “Ahlus Sunnah,” we do not simply mean Sunnis as opposed to Shias,[1] nor are we asking whether one group is considered “closest to Ahlus Sunnah” by the other.
I love this article, if only more understood. I’d like to add that those who argue we shouldn’t discuss Allah’s attributes because we have greater problems aren’t even honest. If we were to ask them would they prioritize Allah’s attributes in a world that is free from all the major threats we have today? Of course not. That’s because they don’t care about Allah’s attributes and haven’t understood Sunni Islam from the first place. What they’re advocating in reality is to accept both schools as valid even thought each school believes the other holds blasphemous views. It’s possible to focus on the greater evil WHILE recognizing that the Asharis are misguided and hold invalid views. Instead some people in force their own recently made up school of theology *cough* Dr. Yas… *cough* then label and criminalize anyone that opposes their own modern theological school that doesn’t have predecessors.
If these are irreconcilable disputes on what you call serious theological issues, what exactly is the severity of the difference (according to both sides)? I know early salafis did takfir of ash'aris.
Should salafis do takfir today of ash'aris, and vice versa? You use the term "serious theological errors" which is ambiguous. Is this grounds for takfir? When does a bid'ah of this nature become bid'ah mukafirah?
Are you sure you read the entire article and referred to the contents of the links provided in the footnotes? If so, it's strange that you would ask this question.
Apologies for misreading you. I recall coming across one statement from a Najdi scholar that came across as him making takfir. I'm not aware of all or most them making blanket tafkeer of all Ash'aris at an individual basis. Please link me up to an article that argues that so that I can benefit and explore. Jzak.
No worries. The blanket takfir made by the early najdiyyah is well known. I don't have a statement about asha'irah in specific, but blanket takfir was made of the ottomans (and those who didn't make takfir of them), as YQ mentions here:
Contemporary salafis get out of making takfir on issues like tawassul and istighatha through عذر بالجهل. But as YQ explains the early najdiyyah did not sugarcoat things and were not shy to make takfir on these issues. I'm sure all the ash'airah get lumped in once you do chain takfir of those who do not take tawassul/istighatha as kufr.
This is not an ‘ilmi approach. Too much speculation in what you’re saying. I’m aware of YQ’s video, and I don’t hold YQ in high regard as an authority.
What you need to demonstrate to make your case is that the early najdis would have made takfir of Asharis simply for their Ashari views (like denying Uluww, Allah spoke in letters, etc.). Not all Ash’aris engaged in saint veneration; hence, you would need to demonstrate that the Najdis would have still made takfir of them on account of their Asharism.
We need to choose our words carefully and present our evidence for our claims even more so.
Again, I’m not even saying you’re wrong. I’m just asking you to present the evidence. If anything, my impression was that the Najdis didn’t care too much about the sifaat issues, but I could be wrong.
even if not all ash'aris engaged in "saint veneration", no ash'ari would make takfir of someone who did it. Which by من لم يكفر الكافر makes them kafir all the same, no?
Like I said I don't know if they made takfir on them _on account_ of their ash'arism, but isn't it enough if they end up kuffar according to some other criterion?
I love this article, if only more understood. I’d like to add that those who argue we shouldn’t discuss Allah’s attributes because we have greater problems aren’t even honest. If we were to ask them would they prioritize Allah’s attributes in a world that is free from all the major threats we have today? Of course not. That’s because they don’t care about Allah’s attributes and haven’t understood Sunni Islam from the first place. What they’re advocating in reality is to accept both schools as valid even thought each school believes the other holds blasphemous views. It’s possible to focus on the greater evil WHILE recognizing that the Asharis are misguided and hold invalid views. Instead some people in force their own recently made up school of theology *cough* Dr. Yas… *cough* then label and criminalize anyone that opposes their own modern theological school that doesn’t have predecessors.
If these are irreconcilable disputes on what you call serious theological issues, what exactly is the severity of the difference (according to both sides)? I know early salafis did takfir of ash'aris.
Should salafis do takfir today of ash'aris, and vice versa? You use the term "serious theological errors" which is ambiguous. Is this grounds for takfir? When does a bid'ah of this nature become bid'ah mukafirah?
Are you sure you read the entire article and referred to the contents of the links provided in the footnotes? If so, it's strange that you would ask this question.
In summary, this should not warrant takfir, despite some of these issues revolving around مقالات كفرية. Your generic claim about the Salaf making takfir is inaccurate; please see https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/would-the-salaf-have-made-takfeer?utm_source=publication-search
The ramifications is that we deem each other's beliefs to be invalid and deviant.
You misread, I said the early _salafis_ (i.e. wahhabi movement) made takfir, not salaf. Do you dispute that?
Apologies for misreading you. I recall coming across one statement from a Najdi scholar that came across as him making takfir. I'm not aware of all or most them making blanket tafkeer of all Ash'aris at an individual basis. Please link me up to an article that argues that so that I can benefit and explore. Jzak.
No worries. The blanket takfir made by the early najdiyyah is well known. I don't have a statement about asha'irah in specific, but blanket takfir was made of the ottomans (and those who didn't make takfir of them), as YQ mentions here:
https://youtu.be/dRtYCJ7bE5I?si=nj_c2g3q-WFIZrYo&t=8101
this is the text he's citing:
https://app.turath.io/book/3055?page=4015
Contemporary salafis get out of making takfir on issues like tawassul and istighatha through عذر بالجهل. But as YQ explains the early najdiyyah did not sugarcoat things and were not shy to make takfir on these issues. I'm sure all the ash'airah get lumped in once you do chain takfir of those who do not take tawassul/istighatha as kufr.
This is not an ‘ilmi approach. Too much speculation in what you’re saying. I’m aware of YQ’s video, and I don’t hold YQ in high regard as an authority.
What you need to demonstrate to make your case is that the early najdis would have made takfir of Asharis simply for their Ashari views (like denying Uluww, Allah spoke in letters, etc.). Not all Ash’aris engaged in saint veneration; hence, you would need to demonstrate that the Najdis would have still made takfir of them on account of their Asharism.
We need to choose our words carefully and present our evidence for our claims even more so.
Again, I’m not even saying you’re wrong. I’m just asking you to present the evidence. If anything, my impression was that the Najdis didn’t care too much about the sifaat issues, but I could be wrong.
even if not all ash'aris engaged in "saint veneration", no ash'ari would make takfir of someone who did it. Which by من لم يكفر الكافر makes them kafir all the same, no?
Like I said I don't know if they made takfir on them _on account_ of their ash'arism, but isn't it enough if they end up kuffar according to some other criterion?