Yusuf al-Qaradawi Spills the Beans

In his book (الإيمان والحياة ), "Faith and Life", al-Qaradawi mentions - during the course of his discussion of the beliefs of the Mutakallimeen (Ahl al-Kalaam including Ash'aris and Maturidis) and and the Falaasifah (Philosophers) - the following about the creed of Aristotle:

الإله في الإسلام ليس بمعزل عن هذا الكون وما فيه ومن فيه كإله أرسطو الذي سماه المحرك الأول أو العلة الأولى ووصفه بصفات كلها سلوب لا فاعلية لها ولا تأثير، ولا تصريف ولا تدبير، فإن هذا الإله -كما صورته الفلسفة الأرسطية- لا يعلم إلا ذاته، ولا يدرى شيئاً عما يدور في هذا الكون العريض. إله أرسطو والفلسفة اليونانية لم يخلق هذا الكون من عدم، بل العالم عندهم أزلي غير محدث ولا مخلوق. وإله أرسطو لا صلة له بهذا العالم، ولا عناية له به، ولا يدبر أمراً فيه، لأنه لا يعلم ما يجري فيه مما يلج في الأرض أو يخرج منها، وما ينـزل من السماء أو يعرج فيها. كل ما يقوله أرسطو ومن تبعه عن الإله أنه ليس بجوهر ولا عرض وليس له بداية ولا نهاية، وليس مركباً ولا جزءاً من مركب وليس داخل العالم ولا خارجه، ولا متصلاً به ولا منفصلاً عنه، وهذه السلبيات لا تجعل الإله كائناً يرجى ويخشى، ولا تربط الناس بربهم رباطاً محكماً يقوم على المراقبة والتقوى والثقة والتوكل والخشية والمحبة. هذا الإله المعزول عن الكون -الذي عرفه الفكر اليوناني، وعنه انتقل إلى الفكر الغربي الحديث- لا يعرفه الإسلام

Here is the translation:

The deity in Islam is not isolated from this universe (kawn) and (from) whatever and whoever is within it, like the deity of Aristotle who called (his deity) "the First Mover" or "the First Cause" and described Him with attributes having no activity (faa'iliyyah) and no effect, no dealing and no regulation (of the universe). For this deity - as the Aristotelian Philosophers have portrayed - does not know except His own essence and does not know anything that takes place in this vast universe.

The deity of Aristotle and the Greek Philosophers did not create this universe from nothing, rather the universe, in their view, is eternal not originated and not created. And the deity of Aristotle does not have any connection to this universe, no concern with it and He does not regulate any affair pertaining to it, because He does not know what takes therein, or what enters or comes out of the earth, or what descends from the sky or ascends.

All of what Aristotle says and whoever followed him about the deity - that He is not a jawhar (substance) and not an 'arad (incidental attribute) and does not have beginning or end and is not composed (murakkab) and is not an elementary part of what is composed and is not inside the universe or outside of it, is not attached or detached to it. And these negations do not make the deity to be one who is hoped in and feared, and nor do they attach the people to their Lord with a precise attachment based upon muraaqabah (observation of religious duty), taqwa (piety), thiqah (attachment, trust), tawakkul (reliance), khashyah (awe, fear) and love (mahabbah). This deity isolated from the world which is known in Greek thought and from which it transferred to modern Western thought - is not known by Islaam.

The above needs some discussion so that the reader can truly appreciate this little incident in the kitchen between al-Qaradawi (Ash'ari) and GF Haddaad (Ash'ari):

ONE: The Logic and Philosophy and Theology of Aristotle.

Aristotle classified all things in the universe into jawaahir, ajsaam (bodies) and a'raad (incidental attributes of those bodies). He did this in order to make it easier to apply his logic and philosophy which was all based around the truth or falsity of propositions. Aristotle spoke a lot about the issue of predication, and this was a linguistic discussion, however, this was integrally tied to his syllogistic logic, by which the truthfulness of propositions is evaluated. A proposition is simply to say "A is B", such as "the tea is hot." You have probably heard of this before, its like this:

All A's are B's
X is an A
Therefore X is a B

So since the truth and falsehood of propositions was integral to attaining knowledge to Aristotle, the issue of predication in the language, as in assigning qualities and properties to things, was discussed in detail by Aristotle. Thus, he laid down what are known as his Categories, which is known as al-Jawhar wal-Arad (substance and incidental attribute) or al-Maqulat al-Ashar (the ten categories). The intent of Aristotle here was to comprehensively categorize everything that can take the place of a subject and a predicate in a proposition. In the proposition "the tea is hot", the "tea" is the subject and "is hot" is the predicate. So he came up with ten categories and everything in the universe is either a substance (jawhar, jism) or nine incidental attributes, and incidental attributes are found only in substances. All of this created the framework upon which his logic and philosophy could be built. These ten categories are presented below:

The first category deals with "what something is":

1. substance (jawhar)

The rest are incidental attributes (a'raad, also referred to as "accidents") which deal with "how it is":

1. quantity (al-kam) - dimensions and measurable features, length, breadth, width and so on
2. quality (al-kayf) - perceived characteristics, color, shape, and so on.
3. relation (al-idaafah) - how a substance is in relation to others, above, below, right, left and so on.
4. place (al-ayn) - where it is
5. time (mataa) answering "when?" - temporal characteristics of the substance
6. position (al-wad') - how a substance's parts are ordered in relation to each other
7. action (yaf'al) acting - what a substance is doing
8. affection (yanfa'il) a substance being acted upon
9. having (al-mulk) - what the substance has on

The next thing to undertand is that Aristotle also devised a proof for the existence of what he calls "the Prime Mover" or "the First Cause." His argument is that all the motion we see in the universe (meaning the celestial bodies) is eternal but cannot go back into an infinite regress (in terms of its cause). Hence, there must be an "unmoved" mover who is behind it all and this is "the Unmoved Mover" or "the First Cause." Then he characterized this deity to be one devoid of the Ten Categories, and thus speech of his deity became one of making negations. In other words, "He is not a jism (body) He is not an 'arad (incidental attribute), not in place, not in time, not above, not divisible, not subject to events (hawaadith)..." and so on.

TWO: The Theology of Jews, Christians, Sabeans and Muslims Affected by Aristotelian Conceptual Baggage.

One can clearly see in the above the diety as presented by the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah. This is very clear and apparent. The theology of Aristotle had already affected the Jews, Christians and Sabeans before it affected the Muslims. As an example, looking at the writings of Philo (20BC-50CE), (see here and also here) a Jew from Alexandria who was present around the time Eesaa (alayhis salaam), and Augustine of Hippo (d. 430CE), (see here, and also here) a Christian, one will see the exact same language found in the books of the Mu'tazilah, Ash'aris and Maturidis. The ilm al-Kalaam, of the Ahl al-Kalaam is not so original. Rather, it's simply the second-hand, used and abused toy of the past nations (Sabeans, Jews, Christians) that actually originates in the mind of Aristotle. Unfortunately, when it came into the hands of the Mutakallimin (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah), they took it and lapped it up like a kid does a ice-cream, not realizing that there has been many a nation, or scholastic whose already "been there, done that."

Now of course, the Ahl al-Kalaam (Mu'tazilah, Ash'aris, Maturidis) did not agree with Aristotle's claim of an eternal universe, but when they devised a proof to demonstrate that the universe is originated, they actually took the basic elements of the proof devised by Aristotle to argue for his "First Cause" and "Unmoved Mover". The Mu'tazilah devised what became known as "hudooth al-ajsaam" (origination of bodies), and they used the issue of motion (harakah) and rest (sukoon) to argue that all bodies in the universe are originated - and this was taken from them by the Ash'aris and Maturidis. The theology of these people is actually built on the same conceptual foundations, their arguments are only in relation to subsidiary matters that follow on from those foundations (learn more here).

THREE: The Aristotelian Deity Brought to You Courtesy of Ahl al-Kalaam and Justified in the Name of ta'weel and Tafweed.

The essential thing to note here is that the conceptual tools and terminological baggage used by the Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah are Aristotelian and though they tried to refute the claim of an eternal universe, they were forced to use that same conceptual baggage and terminology in qualifying the deity they arrived at through this proof. As a result a large part of the theology of the Ash'aris and Maturidis is to describe Allaah with sifaat salbiyyah (negative attributes) - as in to qualify Allaah through negative assertions - meaning "Allaah is not a body, not an incidental attribute, not above, not below, not confined by space, not in direction, not inside the universe..." This is Aristotle's deity and is not the deity of the Messengers. However, the various groups who delved into this Kalaam differed with each other as to what can and cannot be affirmed for Allaah without invalidating the basic argument (of proving the universe is originated through this method). The Jahmiyyah were most coherent rationally and said "We deny everything, Allaah cannot be described with anything, name, attribute or action as this would entail Jismiyyah for Him." The Mu'tazilah pretended to affirm names whilst denying the rest. The Ash'aris and Maturidis fell into contradiction by trying to affirm some attributes but denything others and denything the actions of Allaah which are tied to His will and choice and their theology subsequently became based around intellectual creativity and word play in trying to patch up the contradictions and inconsistencies.

In turn, all of these groups had to deal with the texts in the Qur'an that clashed with this new innovated theology. In the 2nd century hijrah, the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah pioneered tahreef (distortion) of the texts in the name of ta'weel (interpretation). Many of the ta'weels used to distort the verses of the attributes in order to negate the attributes were invented by Bishr al-Mareesee (d. 218H) during the 2nd century hijrah and were later inherited by the Ash'aris and Maturidis. However, they were not entirely convinced by the approach of ta'weel because it posed numerous problems, so they innovated the doctrine of tafweed which they tried to ascribe to the Salaf. Conceptually speaking - to them - ta'weel is not powerful enough to remove the stains of Tajseem that are in the Qur'an and thus, something more heavy duty, tafweed was invented as a concept to do the job. This way, all the stains of Tajseem found in the speech of Allaah, the Exalted, and His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) can be removed with one clean sweep.

These groups were forced to remain consistent with that Aristotelian notion of a deity despite trying to refute the claim of Aristotle that the matter of the universe is eternal. The moral of the story is that if you jump in the water, you are going to get wet! Unfortunately, the Ash'aris try to do the impossible, which is convince others that they jumped into the water (conceptual baggage and terminology) and came out dry, and all sane people laugh at them in bemusement when they (the Ash'aris) describe their deity as "not a jism, not an 'arad, not in a makaan, not in a hayyiz, not in a jihah..."

FOUR: Al-Qaradawi Spills the Beans on the Kitchen Floor.

Whatever has been mentioned above is historical fact and reality. It cannot be disputed after an objective study of early Islamic history and that of other nations (Jews, Christians and Sabeans) who were affected in the same way. It is a reality that the Ash'ari leaders and scholars do not want the masses to find out. The Ash'ari common-folk do not know these matters and the Ash'aris in general are the most ignorant and confused about their creed, they are kept in deliberate ignorance and spoon-fed with plenty of rounds of intellectual terrorism against Ahl al-Sunnah who are accused of being Mujasssimah and Mushabbihah merely because their doctrine is not based upon Aristotelian conceptual baggage and negative theology but upon the following:

To affirm for Allah what He and His Messenger affirmed for Him without ta'teel (which include tafwid), takyif, tamthil, tahrif (which includes ta'wil) and tashbih, and there is not any tashbih in anything the revealed texts affirm for Him by consensus of the Imaams of the Salaf.

So when al-Qaradawi stated in his book:

All of what Aristotle says and whoever followed him about the deity - that He is not a jawhar (substance) and not an 'arad (incidental attribute) and does not having beginning or end and is not composed and is not an elementary part of what is composed and is not inside the universe or outside of it, is not attached or detached to it.

He (perhaps unwittingly) spilled the beans on the floor. This lead other Ash'aris in the kitchen of Kalaam to become terrified, because al-Qaradawi is simply confirming historical fact and reality and something that can be investigated and corroborated - this is the deity of Aristotle in his works and it is identical to the deity of the Ahl al-Kalaam and also of the Mutafalsifah (the likes of Ibn Sina). Read this article on Ibn Sina and Ghazali and you will see that whilst they fought on certain issues (is the universe eternal or originated, the nature and reality of prophethood and resurrection), they were agreed on how to describe the deity. These are realities that the Ash'ari and Maturidi leaders want hidden from the masses whom they have deceived into thinking that they are following the way of the Imaams of the Salaf, when in reality their theological roots go back to the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah who were disputants and enemies to the Imaams of the Salaf.

FIVE: GF Haddaad Rushes to Clean the Mess and Put it Back in the Can.

GF Haddaad wrote a lengthy article titled simply, "Yusuf al-Qaradawi" that was published in 2007. He addressed many issues therein but the one that concerns us is the part relating to what al-Qaradawi said above. First GF Haddaad translates the same quote we have translated above, he writes:

In al-Iman wal-Hayat, al-Qaradawi gives the most astounding display of compound ignorance of Islamic doctrine when he writes: "Aristotle's God has no connection to this world and no care for it He does not even dispose of a single matter in it because He does not know what takes place in it such as what enters the earth or comes out of it or what descends from the heavewn or ascends up to it All that Aristotle and his followers say about the Deity is that 'he is neither a substance (laysa bi-jawhar) nor an accident (wa-la `arad), He has no beginning and no end, He is neither a compound (murakkab) nor part of a compound (juz' min murakkab), He is neither inside the world nor outside of it, and He is neither connected to it nor disconnected from it' All these negations do not represent an existent God Who is supplicated and feared, and they do not tie people to their Lord with an unbreakable bond set up on vigilance, godwariness, trust, reliance, humility and love! This God isolated from the existent world, Whom Greek thought knows and from which was transposed to modern Western thought, is unknown to Islam."

First, lets look at the psychology here, we see a mentally disturbed individual, he whines:

In al-Iman wal-Hayat, al-Qaradawi gives the most astounding display of compound ignorance of Islamic doctrine when he writes: ...

In reality, it is GF Haddad who makes the most astounding display of ignorance and al-Qaradawi is actually correct in that the alleged "Islamic doctrine" (as propounded by the Ash'arites) is in fact the doctrine of Aristotle as it relates to the deity believed in by the Ahl al-Kalaam (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah). The origin of all of this is from the language and conceptual baggage of Aristotle. The cat is out of the bag and GF Haddad wants to shove it back in again. The beans are on the floor, and he wants to get rid of them and back into the can. To GF Haddad, al-Qaradawi has committed a crime by revealing this reality and using language which actually belongs to Aristotle. This is Aristotle's intellectual property and it was stolen (or borrowed) by the Jews, Christians, Sabeans, Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, Jahm bin Safwan, Ja'd bin Dirham, the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah and others, and all al-Qaradawi has done is to cite the original master of this type of language in describing the deity.

Trying to cover this up, GF Haddaad states, in protest, "on the contrary..." and proceeds to cite four statements (from Ali bin Abi Taalib, al-Tabari, al-Bayhaqi and then al-Ghazali) to prove that this is not Aristotle's deity but one propounded by Muslim authorities. In other words GF Haddad is saying that al-Qaradawi is displaying ignorance of Islamic doctrine because he is ascribing Islamic doctrine to Aristotle.

This is laughable, a clear twisting of the realities and facts and a vain attempt because the honest and sincere person can clearly see where the theology of Ahl al-Kalaam came from, it came from Aristotelian conceptual baggage. This is Aristotle's intelletual property.

Note: There were many scholars who came later (from the 5th century onwards [400H]) who became affected by some of this language and terminology and began to use it in their books and because they ascribed to the Imaams of the madhaahib, the latecomers wrongly assumed that this is what the four Imaams were upon, when in reality the four Imaams condemned Kalaam and its people and there is not to be found in anything authentically ascribed to them, the use of this language as a basis to speak about Allaah and His Attributes. Rather what is firmly-established from them is condemnation of anyone who used this Kalaam to speak about Allaah, the Exalted.

It is not our intention here in this article to address these citations as that is unnecessary here but we want to point out that GF Haddaad's intent is to remove the mess (spilled beans) from the floor, shove it back in the can and accuse al-Qaradawi of "assimilating Asharism into Aristotle's doctrine." These are very revealing words, and they illustrate a psychological fear on behalf of Jahmites like GF Haddaad who are looked up to by others. They fear that when the average Ash'ari is exposed to articles like the following:

Aristotle of Stageira, Philo of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, the Sabeans of Harraan, the Mu'tazilites of Basrah and Baghdad and the Jahmite Ash'ari Heretics of Today Claiming Orthodoxy - Part 1 (see here), Part 2 (see here), Part 3 (see here), Part 4 (see here), Part 5 (see here).

The facts might lead the Ash'ari masses to investigate further and re-evaluate their analysis of the first three centuries of Islaam (to investigate the true nature and details of the conflict between the Salaf and the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah in 2nd century hijrah) and re-evaluate their position towards the people of the Sunnah, the followers of hadeeth and aathaar who they are quick to accuse of Tajseem and tashbeeh (upon the basis of that Aristotelian conceptual baggage). The Ash'arite scholarship really only begins in the fifth century (starting from 400H onwards) and Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari himself left the Mu'tazilah and became a Kullaabi after which he drifted towards the madhhab of Imaam Ahmad. The creed in his final works is something that today's Ash'aris do not adopt, especially in the field of al-uluww and the sifaat Khabariyyah, and they fight against Ahl al-Sunnah on these issues, despite the fact that the very Early Ash'aris affirmed these matters and had powerful refutations against the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah with respect to them. So there are plenty of surprises in history and a large part of the polemic coming from the Ash'aris (Jahmiyyah) today involves concealing this history from the masses whom they have deceived. They have taken them away from the Tawhid of the Messengers and draw them instead to the language of the Tawhid of the Philosophers (whilst claiming to wage war against the Philosophers).

Conclusion

Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a major Ash'ari scholar. He reveals things that others might not like to be revealed. This can often happen from prominent Ash'aris. Here is another example from al-Buti:

• Muhammad Sa'eed Ramadan Buti: We (The Ash'aris) and the Mu'tazilah are United that the Qur'an Is Created And What the Mu'tazilah Call 'Knowledge (al-Ilm)' and 'Will (al-Iraadah)', We Simply Call 'al-Kalaam an-Nafsee' - (see here)

The moral of the story here is that there are plenty of beans spilled on the floor with people like al-Raazee and al-Aamidee and al-Qaradawi and Buti and others sometimes being candid and frank, or as GF Haddaad sees it, careless and irresponsible. In that case, GF Haddaad, keep wearing that apron!

Endnote

---

An ignorant individual by the name of Salman Awan (whose reality has been discussed here and here) made some comments on the last sentence from the paragraph below from the introduction to this article.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a very prominent Ash'ari scholar who is also the spiritual leader of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon, an organization headed by Ash'ari Sufis of Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood were responsible for the spread of extremism and terrorism in the name of Islam through the second half of the 20th century. Sayyid Qutb, a major factor in the spread of extremist doctrines was a fully-fledged Ash'ari (SayyidQutb.Com). Incidentally, Hasan al-Banna was a Sufi, Ash'ari, Muufawwidh. Muhammad Abduh was an Ash'ari Maturidi. Muhammad Rashid Rida was also an Ash'ari in his earlier years. And Jamal al-Din al-Afghani also held a doctrine founded upon the Kalaam of the Ash'aris and Maturidis and had esoteric (Sufi) beliefs. Taqi al-Din al-Nabahani is also an Ash'ari Maturidi in his creed on the sifaat. Fraudulently, these Ash'ari, Maturidi, Sufis have been associated with Salafiyyah (Rasheed Rida requires a separate discussion outside the scope of this article - but he was raised an Ash'ari), the objective being to malign Salafiyyah.

First, this individual is a follower of Safar al-Hawali, the promulgator of practical extremist Irjaa', the Irjaa' of Jahm bin Safwan and of the Ash'aris of attaining eemaan through ma'rifah and tasdeeq absent the actions of the heart. These indviduals, their allegiances and loyalties are greater for heretical Rafidee Ash'aris such as Sayyid Qutb than they are for Mu'awwiyah and his parents (radiallaahu anhum) as evidenced by their long history of outward actions. We are not like the Ghulaat al-Murji'ah who separate beliefs from the actions of the heart and thus make it plausable that a person can defend - with full knowledge having come to him - a Rafidee Ash'ari like Qutb or remain utterly indifferent to his Rafidee poison (amongst the multitude of other poisons in his books) and describe him as an "Imaam of Guidance" whilst hating, despising, maligning and attacking those who defend Mu'awiyah from the slanderous takfir made upon him and his parents by the likes of this Raafidee (Qutb), and refute the Ash'arism, I'tizaal, Tajahhum present in his books distributed in the millions worldwide. This is the extremist Irjaa' of Jahm bin Safwan who made it plausable that a man can be a believer, friend of Allaah, having attained obligatory eemaan just by knowing Allaah in his heart despite at the same time committing acts of kufr, abandoning prayer, committing adultery, stealing, waging war against the believers and so on. This is the nature of the connection of these people (Safar al-Hawali and his followers like Saleem Begg, Salman Awan and others) to the Salafi aqidah and to the aqidah regarding the Sahaabah (radiallaahu anhum) in that it is only an academic matter to them. Whilst they might hold the virtue and excellence of the Companions (and may subscribe to other tenets of the Salafi creed), this remains as pure information (ma'rifah, tasdeeq) that does not give rise to love, hate, loyalty, disloyalty which is subsequently manifested outwardly. We know this because outward actions give evidence of what is taking place in the heart (of actions). Hence, they consider it plausible that they have brought the obligatory eemaan by holding those matters factually and academically whilst showing the greatest of enmity, hatred, and plotting in every way, setting up blogs, websites to malign, attack, ridicule, mock those Salafis who defend the Salafi aqidah from the poison of heretics like Sayyid Qutb against Prophets (Musa, alayhis salaam) and the Companions (radiallaahu anhum) and who exonerate Islam from Qutb's "Islamo-Marxist-Socialism" and exonerate the Muslim Ummah from Qutb's mass takfir and exonerate the Islamic aqidah from his Rafd, Tajahhum and Ash'arism. This is what is being done by Salman Awan (and Saleem Begg). This is a contradiction and is a manifestation of Extremist Irjaa'

This individual made a remark with respect to the sentence alluded to in the opening of this article, claiming it is inaccurate. All the latest research (in journals) indicates that Salafiyyah has been wrongly ascribed to Muhammad Abduh and al-Afghani, and that whilst they made limited reference to the concept of "predecessors" (intending to refer to past dynamicity as opposed to contemporary rigidity, stagnation and blind-following) as part of their call to move Muslim masses to Modernism and imitation of Europe, they were not in any way referring to Salafiyyah which is a call to returning to the way of the Salaf in creed, da'wah and methodology as a broad program of reform. As for Rashid Rida, he is a special case and we already stated that this requires a separate discussion. But the issue here is that these names are often (fraudulently) associated with Salafiyyah by Ash'aris and Maturidis as a means to malign Salafiyyah - it is fraudulent because these individuals originate from the Ash'ari Maturidi school of doctrine, and they are the pioneers of strife in the Muslim ummah through their innovated form of destructive, wasteful politics incorporating takfir of Muslim masses, extremism and terrorism which they were implementing as early as the late 1940s in Egyptian society. As for the claim of the same individual that these people popularized the label of Salafiyyah then firstly, that is debateable - that's what you get for taking your information from western academics and seeing matters through their eyes - the concept of "Salafiyyah" and sticking to the Salafi way has been known from the very early times in the 2nd century hijrah (refer to Salafis.Com for documentary evidence) and Ibn Taymiyyah was a caller to it and he popularized it when he reconnected the Ummah back to the Salaf after the Ahl al-Kalam broke the Ummah's connection to them. Secondly, let's say that they made use of it and even popularized it (in the modern era), that does not make them Salafi, they only used it as one element of a larger concept whose real aim was to make Muslims turn to imitation of Europe. Thirdly, Malik Abdul-Azeez Aal Saud (d. 1953CE) the founder of the third Saudi state (in 1902CE), openly stated he was Salafi, saying "I am Salafi, my aqidah is Salafiyyah, by whose requirements I traverse upon the Book and the Sunnah" (al-Mus.haf wal-Sayf p. 135) and here, he means the actual Salafiyyah that we are speaking of and it is more befitting that we ascribe popularizing Salafiyyah and ascription to the Salaf to the likes of these rulers (and scholars) than to ignorantly and blindly-follow Western academics and Ash'aris and Sufis and ascribe it to deviant heretics such as al-Afghani and Abduh in order to aid and support their propaganda.

---