The Notes:

On Asma Wa Sifaat:

- The Asharis and the Mu’tazillas went into two different extremes.

- “Whenever the Asharis and Matrudis differed from the Salaf, they
could not give any satisfactory answers” (Akram Nadwi)

- The Quran is not just the “meaning” from Allah, It is the “meaning
and the wording”.

- “You cannot say that “Qul hu Wallahu Ahad” is the meaning from
Allah but not His words” (A.Nadwi)

- Jibraeel (AS) brought the message with BOTH, wording and

meaning.

- “The Asharis have a similar problem like the Muttazilis in relation

to Asma wa Sifaat... They say Allah has only eight eternal
attributes. Who told you this??! Is it from the Quran or Sunnah??!”
(A. Nadwi)

- When the Asharis make all these attributes into one or seven, they
are limiting Allah.

- “Every Attribute is different from the other and has a different

meaning”. They are not the same.

- “We are not like those Asharis who limit the Atributes of Allah to
seven/eight” (A. Nadwi)

- “We believe Allah’s Attributes are unlimited” (A. Nadwi)

- “We believe in Allah’s Attributes as Allah has described Himself”

(A.Nadwi)

- In relation to the Asharis, the Sheikh said- “don’t make the

Attributes the same as each other. If you do not know, then ask the
Scholars!” (A.Nadwi)

- The Sheikh criticised the Asharis for affirming some of Allah’s

Attributes and not others, like Love of Allah, Hand of Allah. In
relation to this the Sheikh said “They run away from one problem to
a bigger problem”.

- “If you can believe in Allah’s knowledge and say it is not like the
creation, then why do you have a problem with Allah’s Hand, Love
etc.” (A. Nadwi on Asharis)

- The sheikh criticised the philosophers, saying that philosophy can

always be refuted; therefore their belief will never be firm.

On Defining Ahlal Sunnah Wal Jama’ah:

- There are 3 groups that fall within the A.S.W.Jamah: Salaf/Athari ,

Ashari and Matrudi.

- “The Aqeedah of the salaf’s is the safest and this is what I follow”
(A. Nadwi)

- The Aqeedah of the salaf is that of the early generations which

include: “Imam Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Laith
Ibn Saad, Awzaa’ee, Shaybaani, Sufiyan At’Tawri, Tahawi, Abu
Yusuf ect.” And “this is what I prefer and follow” (A. Nadwi). They
all believed like each other. 

- Whilst the Ashariya and Matrudiya are from their respective

founders and students.

- The Ashari and Matrudi schools spread due to the increasing

interest of Philosophy in the Ummah. This is why it gained
acceptance. The people were asking questions that were never
asked before. Therefore Ashari/Matrudi used the philosophy to take
people away form Mutazzili beliefs.

- The Ashari and Matrudi school was a “response” to the Mutazzili

problem.

- “If we don’t have the problem (anymore) then we don’t need this
(i.e Ashari/Matrudi schools)”. (A.Nadwi)

- People are not being affected by philosophy like before, so no

need to resort to the Ashari/Matrudi ways. “We have to go back to
the Salaf” (A.Nadwi)

- “Ashari ya and Matrudiya are of the past”. (A. Nadwi)

- “Most people do not even know what Ashariya/Matrudiya are

about yet still try to somehow propagate them” (A.Nadwi)

- “We don’t need Ashari and Mutrudi anymore”(A.Nadwi)

- Ashari and Matrudi are part of A.S.W.Jamah. They defended Islam

from the onslaught of the deviants. It was a response for their time,
so we no longer need that (Ashari/Matrudi Schools) anymore.

Miscellaneous Notes:

- One good thing about the Khawarij was that they didn’t lie, as
they considered major sins taking one out of Islam. Therefore they
were actually good narrators of Hadith. (Sheikh was laughing when
saying this)

- Istiwaa: We believe in it, and do not ask how. The sheikh then
quoted Imam Malik’s famous saying regarding Istiwaa.
- When asked during the Q&A to elaborate on his saying of “Allah’s
Attributes being unlimited”- he quoted Ibn Taymiya and then said
this is what the salafs believed.

- When asked during Q&A regarding point no.38 of Tahawiya (Allah

not having any parts and Limbs) - The Sheikh explained this point
as “Allah not having any parts that are similar to us (creation). His
Hands are not like our hands” 

- “I don’t agree with them (Ashari/Matrudi) but they are still part of
A.S.W.Jama’ah” (A.Nadwi)

- “Read Ibn Taymiyas books. Very good” (A.Nadwi)

- “I prefer to follow the way of the Salaf and the Muhadditheen (as
opposed to Ashari/Matrudi) , because you only go to the
metaphorical meanings if there was a need to, but there is no need
to give metaphorical meaning to Yad (referring to Allah’s Hand).

- When the sheikh was asked to recommend any Sharh

(explanation) of Tahawiya, the Sheikh recommended Ibn Abil-'Izz
al-Hanafi's explanation. Also recommended Sheikh Al Albani’s
Muqadimah.

- When Asked about Ibn Taymiya—the Sheikh said that Ibn Taymiya
was from the Aqeeda of the Salaf. 

- “Ibn Taymiya was one of the great defenders of the Aqeedah of

the Salaf” (A. Nadwi)

- “We praise and love Ibn Taymiya like we do with Abu Hanifa”…”He
was a defender of Islam”. (A.Nadwi)

- "If you want to disagree with Ibn Taymiya, that’s fine, but at least
read his books first" (A. Nadwi)

- I asked in the Q&A session if Fiqh Al Akbar was correctly attributed

to Imam Abu Hanifa. The sheikh said he is currently researching
into the writings of Imam Abu Hanifa and will insha’Allah soon be
publishing a book on it. He said that Fiqh al Akbar is not Abu
Hanifa’s as Imam Abu Hanifa didn’t used to write any books. Also he
said that the language and some of the topics within the book shows
that it cannot be from the lifetime of Imam Abu Hanifa, as those
topics and the manner of explaining them came about long after the
Imam. He said it is most probably from his Students’ student or
later Hanafi students. These students may have gathered the
information form the fatawa and sayings of Imam Abu Hanifa, and
therefore the attribution of the book is justified, but the book itself,
in terms of wording etc, is not that of Abu Hanifa’s.

- I then asked- despite the controversy surrounding the attribution

of the book, is the contents of the book good? He said yes it was a
good book.

- Qadiyanis are Kuffars. They are not even a “sect” of Islam.

- During Q&A when he was asked about the differences between

Brelwis and Deobandis, he said there were some similarities as well
as differences. The similarity being that they both are Hanafis as
well as following same Sufi Orders. He said the Brelwis believe that
the Prophet is alive because Allah says that the martyrs are alive, so
therefore the Prophet, who is better then the martyrs must be alive.
This is their logic. However the sheikh then criticised them for this.
He mentioned the verses of the Quran that talks about the prophet’s
(saw) death, as well as Abu Bakr (RA)’s statement after the death-
“Those who used to worship Muhammed, let him know that he is
dead…” 

- The sheikh said that the best of the awliya are not better than the
lowest ranked Companion of the Prophet (SAW).

- The sheikh criticised the sufis that do not question their Sheikhs at
all. He then gave an example of a Ahlal Hadith student who had a
Hanafi Sufi teacher. When the teacher told him that he had “ilhaan”
(inspiration)that the best and most correct Medhab was Abu
Hanifa’s, and that it will remain as such till the day of judgement, so
he told him that he must follow it. The student, who was the first to
ever question the Sheikh, told him I do not follow your “ilhan”,
rather show it to me from the Quran and Sunnah where it says that
the Hanafi Medhab is the best and that I must follow it. The Sheikh,
who was a pious man, realised his mistake and told the student that
he was correct. The moral of the story being- Not to give
unreserved obedience to a teacher for they are humans, prone to
error.

- He criticised all those groups who label themselves and are

constantly fighting each other due to their ignorance and blind
hatred. He gave an example through a true story from India. There
was a Sikh store where the muslims would by their goods. But news
was spread that this Sikh has become a “Wahhabi”. So those
scholars that were against “wahhabism” told all the muslims in the
area not to by from the “Wahhabi Sikh’s store”. The Sikh after some
time found out about this and so went to the mosque and told the
imam, please tell them I am not a wahhabi. The Scholars then
announced that “the sikh is no longer a wahhabi, so you can buy
from his store”! (The sheikh was laughing when narrating this,
highlighting the ignorance and misunderstanding that exists
between groups). Furthermore he went on to say how if a so called
“wahhabi” would enter their mosque, they would insist on the
mosque being cleaned, whilst others would demand the mosque
being rebuilt!!