The Salaf, Time and the ʿAqīdah of Ibn Taymiyyah

What was the ʿaqīdah of the salaf before Imam al-Ashʿarī? Or is it necessary to follow one of the two schools described, Ashʿarī and Māturīdī? As described in the previous chapter, all that al-Ashʿarī and al-Māturīdī did was take the mainstream beliefs, codify them, and lay them out in one organized way. That is basically it: all the ʿulamāʾ had the core fundamental beliefs. Some of these later categorizations are new, because they were not required before. So, for example, for the Muʿtazilah, there was no need to actually really understand how the attributes relate to Allah. We believe that Allah is Samīʿ, Baṣīr, and that was all that was necessary. So these things are answers to the challenges of the time.

And yes, one does not have to be Ashʿarī or Māturīdī, as long as one does not have any deviant beliefs, and has a good source of knowledge. A lot of people are Ashʿarī or Māturīdī all their life, because that is the orthodoxy, but they do not have to know that. So one does not have to be Ashʿarī or Māturīdī, but one cannot be anything else, meaning one cannot be sectarian; that is what is meant. One cannot be deviant.

One question is answered by Imam al-Ṭaḥāwī himself: are Allah's attributes always at the same level, even before any need for them? For example, was He Qayyūm before creation? Absolutely. He went on about that, and he spoke about that quite a bit.

Time is a creation of Allah that does not apply to Allah, but does apply to the creation. That is absolutely correct.

It is said that no eye has seen Jannah. What, then, of Ilyās (peace be upon him)? What was meant in the previous chapter is that, for us, that is the description of Paradise. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was shown Paradise. He was shown Paradise in that dimension. There is a difference of opinion about Ilyās (peace be upon him), but the fact is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was taken on a tour of Paradise and Hell.

What is the difference between the ʿaqīdah of Ibn Taymiyyah and that of Imam al-Ṭaḥāwī? Actually, there is quite a bit of difference. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote a number of books on ʿaqīdah — al-ʿAqīdah al-Tadmuriyyah, al-Ḥamawiyyah, al-Wāsiṭiyyah; al-Wāsiṭiyyah being, it seems, the last one — and there are differences in all of them. He was condemned; he was taken to task for a number of things that he said, and that were attributed to him. He was actually imprisoned, finally. When it comes to fiqh and those things, he was just outstanding.

When it came to ʿaqīdah, unfortunately, there were scholars that mentioned, like al-Subkī and others, that there were many issues. For example, his belief, which is quite documented, that he thinks Hellfire will eventually come to an end, with all of its inhabitants. So that is the primary difference. Al-Ṭaḥāwī's ʿaqīdah is accepted by all. Ibn Taymiyyah's ʿaqīdah and his books are not; they are only approved by a select few, and that also more recently.

The Ṭaḥāwiyyah has stood the test of time for a lot longer, and even those who follow Ibn Taymiyyah's ʿaqīdah agree with the Ṭaḥāwiyyah. So the one to go to is not Ibn Taymiyyah's ʿaqīdah but the Ṭaḥāwiyyah, unless a person is, say, a master of ʿaqīdah, and wants to just study other things; and that is different.