Advice Regarding Hamza Tzortzis and Company (iERA): Part 2 - The Usool of al-Jahm bin Safwan and Ahl al-Kalaam|
Monday, August 26 2013 - by Abu.Iyaad
Read more articles at Aqidah.Com
In the second century of Islam the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah developed a proof known as 'hudooth al-ajsaam' (origination of bodies) which later developed into the 'kalam cosmological argument'. The two main leaders of this way were al-Jahm bin Safwaan and Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf, the Imaams of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah respectively. It was against these innovators that the Salaf stood to refute and warn because their 'rational kalaam' was the starting point of a series of logical and rational necessities that ultimately required the negation and denial of the major symbols of Islamic belief: the uluww of Allaah the Exalted, the Sifaat (attributes) of Allaah, from which is His speech, His Ru'yah (being seen in the hereafter) with the vision of the eyes and other affairs. The Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah were rationally consistent and followed through with the logical and rational necessities of this kalaam and denied all of these affairs. This comprised an undermining of the religion of Islam and the Salaf did not hesitate to made takfir of them as a group. A couple of centuries later this way was inherited by the Ash'aris and Maturidis who made this same 'kalam' to be a fundamental part of their theology. However, unlike the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah they outwardly appeared to affirm many of those those affairs of belief, but in reality, their affirmation was just a play on words, and their theology largely became exercises in rationality, logic, word-play and twisting of definitions in trying to patch upon the actual contradictions and inconsistencies between a) their affirmation of attributes for Allaah and b) this kalam they made to be the foundation of their religion which actually required them to deny all attributes in reality (for them to be truly rationally and logically consistent).
An underlying premise that allows the kalam argument to come full circle and be completed is the claim of the impossibility of an infinite chain of past events (إمتناع الحوادث لا أول لها). This is in fact the mother of all principles behind the theology of Ahl al-Kalaam and its founder and champion in this Ummah is al-Jahm bin Safwan, the taaghoot and kafir executed in 128H for his heresy and kufr. All the trials and tribulations affecting the Islamic creed as it relates to the names, attributes and actions stem from this principle. Hamza Tzortzis, because he is ignorant and has not studied aqidah, and has little connection with the books of the Salaf, is a caller and inviter to this principle of al-Jahm bin Safwan. Poison surrounded by much honey. How and why? As we said in Part 1, the people of innovation, misguidance and kalaam have much truth with them. If they had no truth with them, they would not have been convinced of the veracity of their way and Shaytan would not have had an easy time in opening up a path of misguidance for them. However, because there is always much truth alongside that poisonous falsehood, then in slow incremental steps, what appears to be something innocent and small, leads to that which is the greatest of kufr and zandaqah. The Salaf were wise to this and this is why there are many statements from them in the second century hijrah indicating that they could foresee the final destination and outcome of the rhetoric of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah when they began speaking with their kalam theology.
In this article we want to show that Hamza Tzortzis is a flag-bearer and caller of this principle of al-Jahm bin Safwan and indicate to our brothers and sisters in all locations that they should not jump on every da'wah bandwagon that comes along with glitter and fanfare just because its leaders are apparently refuting atheists and philosophers - when in the process - they are spreading poison that is concealed and potentially deadly. Those innovators of old did not wallow in their misguidance until after many long years. They started first with what appeared to be sound, innocent-looking principles. Then as they were forced to remain consistent with those principles - because they had committed themselves in debate and argument and could not turn back because they would lose face - they slowly began eroding away the foundations of the Islamic aqidah in order to remain consistent with those principles they started out with and built their arguments upon. This was the evil outcome and this meaning has been indicated in many statements of the Salaf. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Mahdī said as occurs in Dhamm ul-Kalām wa Ahlihī of Abu Ismāʿīl al-Harawī (4/225): "Whoever sought kalām, his final affair will be heresy (zandaqah)." And Ibn Abī Ḥātim said as occurs in Dhamm ul-Kalām wa Ahlihī of Abu Ismāʿīl al-Harawī (4/383): "My father (Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī) and Abū Zurʿah (al-Rāzī) used to say, "Whoever sought religion with kalām, will go astray."
Organized Public Debates, Disputations Oppose the Methodology of the Salaf
The first matter that should be pointed in brief out before our subject is that these forms of debates undertaken by Hamza Tzortzis [and others in the Arab lands such as Adnan Ar'oor who debates with Sufis and Shi'ites on satellite channels with audiences of millions if not hundreds of thousands] are an innovation and oppose the guidance of the Salaf. Imaam Ahmad said in Usool al-Sunnah, "...and abandoning disputation, wrangling, and (controversial) arguments pertaining to the deen..." and it is related from Umar bin Abd al-Azeez who said, "Whoever made his deen subject to (controversial) argumentation, will frequently change." and the narrations from the Salaf relating to argumentation and disputation in general are numerous. One must ask what are the outcomes and results of these types of debates? Each party thinks they have won. These debates eventually become a matter of each party intending to dominate the other. Neither party is convinced by the other. The opposing arguments are already known to all parties before they start in their debates indicating this is just a matter of wanting to the win the debate. Atheists rarely become convinced. Muslims are subjected to shubuhaat and shukook (doubts) and so on. And what entices people to become enthralled by these debates is merely the excitement surrounding the controversy they are about to witness, as in the spectacle of the whole thing. This is a matter that can be developed in a separate article, but here, it is important to note that this is not from the ways of the Scholars upon Sunnah and Salafiyyah, and the harms of this way are very many and numerous, the perceptive person will recognize them.
Hamza Tzortzis and the Foundation of al-Jahm bin Safwaan and Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf, the Two Imaams of Misguidance
In surveying a large amount of Hamza's debates and arguments and his written materials, this matter is so well and firmly established from him. It is something that he has repeated again and again such that a person will immediately recognize this speech. Whilst there are dozons of audio examples from many lectures (debate with Graham Thompson, here), (debate with Ed Buckner here), (same debate with Ed Buckner here), and (debate with Rick Lewis here), we can save a lot of time by just making one written citation from him, and a few of these audios. The screenshot here is of a section in an article written by Hamza Tzortzis and which he still promotes on his website after numerous years. The article is titled, "The Qur'anic Argument For God's Existence." Before we start citing from this article and the audios and making comments, let us give the reader some quick brief insights so they can understand what follows in this article. A much greater elaboration can be cited from the likes of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim and others but we only want to make a brief indication here for the purpose of allowing the reader to follow this article. So we say that:
A Selection of Statements from Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah
We will mention here only a few statements from the scores of statements of Ibn Taymiyyah in this regard. In Minhaj al-Sunnah (1/157) Ibn Taymiyyah says:
And the origin of this kalaam is from the Jahmiyyah, the associates of Jahm bin Safwan and Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf and others. They said: "Because the evidence has indicated that the continuous (infinite history of past) of events is impossible and that it is obligatory that all events (collectively) must have a beginning because of the impossibility of an endless chain of events" - as I have detailed in other than this place.
Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) also says in Majmu' al-Fatawa (5/540-41):
And this foundational principle which was innovated by the Jamiyyah and whoever followed them from Ahl al-Kalaam, of the impossibility of the eternality (dawaam) of Allaah's action, it is that upon which they built the foundations of their religion and they made that to be the foundation of the religion of the Muslims.
And in Majmu' al-Fatawa, (6/307) Ibn Taymiyyah says:
And we have said already: They followed every faction in that which it erred and as for their contradiction then it is because the Mutakallimeen, in (the proof of) huduth al-ajsaam (the origination of bodies, kalam cosmological argument) they depended upon the impossibility of an endless chain of events in the past, this is their (supporting) pillar.
And also in Majmu' al-Fatawa (9/278), Ibn Taymiyyah connects the matters together nicely for us:
And know that those philosophers overpowered the Mutakallimeen, the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and whoever followed their path, because they (the Mutakallimeen) did not know the reality of what Allaah sent His Messenger with, and they did not use the sound evidencees of reason as proof for what they supported (in their view). So these Mutakallimeen fell short in knowing both the revelation and reason until they (began to say): "Allaah never ceased not doing anything and nor speaking with His will, then there occurred whatever there occurred without any newly-arising cause" and they claimed the impossibility of the eternality of Allaah being one who speaks with His will, and then there occurred what occurred without any newly-arising cause, and they claimed the impossibility of Allaah eternally being one who speaks with His will and (one who) does whatever He wills because of their claim of the impossiblity of the infinite (history) of (past) events. Then their Imaams such as al-Jahm bin Safwan and Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf tended (to the view) of the impossibility of (events) being eternal in both the future and the past (together).
This corrupt principle which opposes the Book and the Sunnah allowed the atheists and Philosophers to cast doubt on the flawed proof that rested upon it and the discussion of this is a lengthy matter and is outside the scope of this article.
So we apologise for the great brevity here as there is much more detail to this but we have little time on our hands to connect all the dots. For now, all you need to understand is that this principle is the foundation of the deen of the Jahmites all the Ahl al-Kalaam who followed them in this. We can move on to the speech of Hamza Tzortzis. You can refer to the screenshot. Everything you read in this excerpt from Hamza Tzortzis is the very reasoning and the very foundations of the deen of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah (and later the Ash'ariyyah and Maturidiyyah) whom the Salaf scorned and condemned and which Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is discussing.
Hamza Tzortzis and the Foundation of the Jahmiyyah From Which Their kufr Springs
In this article, he places a subject heading, "The absurdity of an infinite history of past events" and under this heading he writes:
Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe is eternal, meaning it has no beginning and it will never end. However if we think about this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real world? Is it possible? The concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn't make sense. Let's take the following examples to illustrate this point:
In his debate with Graham Thompson (mp3 clip), he says:
Bertrand Russell said in a radio program in the 1960s that the universe is a brute fact and that's it, its just there. To answer the question, why is there something rather than nothing, the claim that the universe is just a brute fact implies that it's eternal, it implies there was no beginning and no end. But if that is the case, if that is really the case, that would mean that the universe has an infinite history of past events, an infinite history of past events. I think this is absurd, its untenable. It's philosophically incoherent. How can we have an infinite history of past events....
And in his debate with Ed Buckner, (mp3 clip) he says:
For example Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist in a radio program, he said the universe is just there and that's all... however, if we scratch the surface on this statement, we would conclude that it is absurd and irrational because that would mean that the universe nver had a beginning which would then mean that our history is infinite, that the universe has an infinite history of past events. I ask you the question, can this really be the case, can we have an infinite history, the answer is no, because the infinite does not exist in the real world.
And in the same debate (mp3 clip) he says:
...the famous German mathematician, David Hilbert he said that "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, it neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." But brothers and sisters, past events are real, they are not just ideas. Therefore the number of past events cannot be infinite, therefore there was a beginning to the universe and it logically follows there was a cause to the universe. This is why leading cosmologists and philosophers of science such as Ellis Kirchsner and Stolgert, they ask and they answer in the following way. They said, "Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes. We suggest on the basis of well known philosophical arguments, the answer is no." ... Now I would argue that this conclusion is also supported by physics.
And in his debate with Rick Lewis (mp3 clip) he says:
Significantly, the famous German mathematician, David Hilbert he said that "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, it neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." But events are not ideas, they are real things, so it logically follows we can't have an infinite history of past events, therefore the universe had a beginning and it logically follows that the universe has a cause.
Everything you have read above is a replication of the polemic of Jahm bin Safwan and Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf, that of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah (and those followed their way) in arguing against the Philosophers and atheists, resting upon the principle of the endless chain of past events being impossible (absurd), it is the slogan of al-Jahm bin Safwan and Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf, the Imaams of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah respectively. It is precisely this very argument that was foundation for the sayings of kufr and zandaqah that came from the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and the destruction of the major symbols of the Islamic aqidah. It is against this kalam and its necessities that the Salaf authored books for centuries afterwards. And all of this - as Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out - is due to the jahl (ignorance) of these people with respect to what the Messengers came with and what the Books were revealed with.
After this in his article, Hamza Tzortzis proceeds to outline three examples to illustrate the absurdity of an infinite history of past events and this was a matter that the Mutakallimeen also set out to do, they used examples which became known as the evidence of 'tatbeeq' (دلالة التطبيق), in other words application of practical examples to illustrate the impossibility of the idea of 'infinity,' that it cannot exist (or is 'absurd' to use Hamza's language). This is something that we hear again and again in Hamza Tzortzis's lectures. Once more, what we have here is the very shubhah (doubt) of the Mutakallimeen in arguing with the atheists, indicating that they did not grasp the reality of what the Qur'an and Sunnah came with and what Allaah sent His Messenger with, and Hamza Tzortzis follows in their path, outlining the foundations of those Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah, calling the Muslims at large to join in the kalam bandwagon and participate in battles (against Atheists) using corrupt weapons that are in fact the starting and origin points of the eventual kufr and zandaqah appearing in the statements of those Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah which they were forced into on account of their adherence to this corrupt foundation. I have read around 15-20 detailed refutations in academic papers of modern day atheists and Philosophers against the kalam argument and some of them they argue quite well (just as Ibn Taymiyyah indicated 700 years ago) that this proof neither demonstrates the existence of a creator and nor the origination of the universe, rather it proves that matter is eternal and there was no act of creation (and hence no creator). It is for this reason that there were some from the later Mutakallimeen who became bewildered on this issue and started to consider the evidence for either scenario (eternal or originated) to be similar in strength. This is because they relied upon this flawed foundation and argument and did not grasp the reality of what the Messengers came with, and as a result it led many of them to periods of doubt and confuson in their lives.
At the end of the section, Hamza Tzortzis writes:
So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.
Again this here is the essence of the kalaam of the Mutakallimeen, that which they founded their deen upon. From this starting point was their misguidance put in motion, leading to tribulation, chaos - from which was the saying that the Qur'an is created leading to the imprisonment or slaughter of thousands from the loftiest of Imaams of the Sunnah, until Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaah), by Allaah's grace and favour, subdued them. So it is from the greatest of calamities that we see people like Hamza Tzortzis leading the kalam bandwagon, enticing thousands of unsuspecting sincere Muslims into this disastrous path, and misguiding them in their religion and setting them up for tribulations in their Eemaan.
Hamza Tzortzis Citing Ibn Taymiyyah and Examples of Confusion
What indicates the confusion of Hamza Tzortzis in this regard is that he cites Ibn Taymiyyah often without even understanding for what reason Ibn Taymiyyah wrote all those works in the first place, whilst he himself outlines the very usool of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah that Ibn Taymiyyah was demolishing when he wrote those works. Whilst there are many examples, we shall give just one here. Hamza Tzortzis says in his lecture entitled "How to prove the existence of God" found on Youtube (mp3 clip here):
What I mean by rational is that our text is in line with the aql, as Ibn Taymiyyah wrote and once said that there is no differentiation, there is no contradiction between the aql and the naql, the intellect and the text itself, meaning the Qur'and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). But, what we have to do is have a sound aql, a sound intellect, an intellect that is in tune with reality, so what we have to do as Muslims is to stand up to the atheists of the world, the richard dawkins of the world, the Sam Harrises of the world, the Christopher Hitchens of the world ... and this is what I want to hopefully show you today so we can have a conversation today so we can address strong arguments for the existence of Allaah...
Here he makes reference to Ibn Taymiyyah speaking on the absence of conflict between intellect and revelation. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a book Dar' Ta'aarud al-Aql wal-Naql (Repelling the Conflict Between Reason and Revelation), this entire book is a refutation of the Ahl al-Kalaam, their theology (based upon the usool of the Jahm bin Safwan and Abu al-Hudhayl al-Allaaf) and their claim of conflict between reason and revelation. And what the Ahl al-Kalaam meant by this is the conflict between a) the necessities of the kalam cosmological argument which they made to be the foundation of belief in Allaah's existence and b) the verses relating to the attributes in the revealed texts. It is strange that Hamza Tzortzis, in the very same lecture, some minutes later, goes on to propound the very matters for which Ibn Taymiyyah actually wrote such works, and outlines the principle of al-Jahm bin Safwan of the impossibility and absurdity of an infinite chain of past events which he relies upon in order to prove the universe had a beginning - the very thing for which Ibn Taymiyyah wrote all those thousands of pages to make clear this was the foundation of all of their misguidance and by which they put the Ummah to trial.
However, even more strange and amazing, indicating the (compound) ignorance of Hamza Tzortzis, is his remark in the talk, before he proceeds to employ and mention the foundation of al-Jahm bin Safwan, with the following ((mp3 clip here):
So brothers and sisters, listen to some of the arguments I am going to use to give a good case for the existence of Allaah, and these arguments belong to the Qur'an, now we have to be very careful when we argue or when we discuss or when we have a conversation with someone that we do not use a basis for our discussion or a premise for our discussion that does not belong in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This is very important because sometimes we can enter into blameworthy kalaam. Now blameworthy kalam is not talking and being philosophical, that's fine. It is using your basis for your discussion and it not being related to the Qur'an and Sunnah. It's very important.
The blameworthy kalaam Hamza Tzortzis is referencing here is the very kalaam he has been utilizing and promoting, indicating his compound ignorance and the fact that he ought not to be delving in these affairs. As for the retort that he is defending Islam from the atheists and he also uses other good arguments, then many of the Ahl al-Kalaam also had good arguments and were defending Islam from the atheists, but they corrupted the deen of the Muslims to a degree whose effects we see today when we see the whole world full of Jahmiyyah. The Ash'aris and Maturidis, the Ibaadiyyah of Oman, Algeria and Libya and elsewhere, the Zaydiyyah of Yemen, the Raafidah of Iran and others. All of them are upon this ilm al-kalaam, the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and all of this started out from corrupt but innocent-looking principles. These people (enemies and disputants to Ahl al-Sunnah and are callers to what amount to doctrines of kufr) are present today because in history there were a people who utilized those false and corrupt foundations in order to combat atheists as they claim, foundations that only returned upon the Islamic aqidah with corruption and destruction. As for his saying, "Now blameworthy kalam is not talking and being philosophical, that's fine" then who informed Hamza of this? Which of the Salaf said this. Which of the people of knowledge said this? This shows the great danger in ignoramuses taking the stage and presenting themselves to the masses, unwittingly spreading poison (alongside the honey), which can prove harmful to the listeners who are oblivious and unware of these matters.
The Salaf's Condemnation of Kalam and its People and the Reasons For That
The Salaf's condemnation of kalaam and its people is related through tawaatur (large scale transmission) and this condemnation was absolute. This has been related from a large body of the Salaf including the four Imaams, and their sayings are plentiful and numerous and can be found in Sharh Usul I'tiqaad Ahl al-Sunnah of al-Laalikaa'ee and al-Ibaanah al-Kubraa of Ibn Battah amongst other works. Here we just want to present a few relevant statements. Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullaah) said, "Do not sit with the people of kalaam, even if they defend the Sunnah" (Manaaqib Imaam Ahmad of Ibn al-Jawzee p. 205). And we would say today, do not sit and listen to the people of kalam and falsafah, even if they defend Islam, for they only have defective goods, which do not attain the objective and only set people up for doubt and bewilderment. Imaam al-Barbaharee (rahimahullaah) said, "Know that there was never any heresy, disbelief, doubts, innovation or misguidance or confusion (bewilderment) in the religion except through kalaam, the people of kalaam, argumentation, disputation, wrangling (in debate) and self-amazement." (Sharh al-Sunnah). Umar bin Abd al-Azeez (rahimahullaah) said, "Whoever subjects his religion to debates will frequently change (with respect to what he is upon)" (Tarteeb al-Madaarik 2/38). Ibn Abd al-Barr (rahimahullaah) said, "The people of fiqh and aathaar (narrations) from all regions are united that the people of kalaam are people of innovation and deviation and they are not considered in the view of all of those to be in the ranks of the fuquhaa." (Jaami' Bayaan al-Ilm no. 1768). The Salaf considered anyone who delved into anything of kalaam to not be from the people of Sunnah. Ahmad bin al-Wazeer al-Qaadee asked Abu Umar al-Dareer (d. 220H), "A man learns something of kalaam by whch he refutes the people of ignorance?" and he replied, "All of kalaam is jahl (ignorance), do not learn ignorance, because everytime you are more knowledgeable of ignorance, you are more ignorant of knowledge." (Ahadith Fi Dhamm al-Kalam Wa Ahlihi, p. 93) . And Abu Yusuf, the Qaadee and student of Abu Haneefah, said, "Knowledge of kalaam and disputation is ignorance and ignorance of kalaam and disputation is knowledge." (Ahadith Fi Dhamm al-Kalam Wa Ahlihi, p. 96).
As for the numerous reasons behind this condemnation, then from them: a) that the people of kalam say about Allaah that of which they have no knowledge, and we have seen Hamza Tzortzis allege that the basis of his Jahmite principle is founded in the Qur'an and Sunnah and is not from the 'blameworthy kalaam', when the truth is the exact opposite and b) that the Salaf feared fitnah (tribulation) for the people on account of these matters, and c) that this kalaam leads its people to doubt, confusion and bewilderment, and d) that the methodology of the people of kalam in presenting their issues (related to creed) differs from the methodology of the Book and the Sunnah in that they use a philosophical, argumentative style which only leads to wrangling, confusion and mixing of realities.
Due to the shortage of time, we are not able to elaborate on this matter in as much detail as we may have liked (it would take a series of articles), but from what has preceded it should be clear to the reader that people like Hamza Tzortzis are spreading principles and foundations that are the building blocks of the deen of the Jahmites, and he is echoing, pretty much verbatim, the rhetoric of al-Jahm bin Safwan, that which was the foundation of much of his misguidance. However, we are the most just of people and we do not accuse Hamza Tzortzis or those put to trial like him of believing in the actual doctrines of the Jahmites regarding the attributes as a whole or propounding them with intent, but we say he is promoting and utilizing one of their key foundational principles which lead to that eventual conclusion, and which force a person to use innovated language in describing Allaah. He and his likes are grossly ignorant in these matters and do not know that they are a) constructing a trojan horse for the atheists on the one hand and on the other, they are laying down foundations which when taking through to their full logical and rational conclusions and necessities [something that Hamza Tzortzis is not in a position to fathom and grasp, neither from near nor far] eventually lead to b) the same corruption in belief that the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah and others entered into with respect Allaah's attributes and actions on account of this kalaam and its foundations, and c) confusion and doubt in the basis of one's faith despite claiming to instill that very faith (using corrupt principles) - since there are numerous atheists who have seen in this corrupt argument exactly what the likes of Ibn Sina and other disbelievers saw over a thousand years ago, and they utilize it to prove that the universe is in fact eternal and there was no 'act' of creation.
Allahu Akbar! Who would have thought that history could be repeated before our very eyes and ears? Dear brother and sister, know that almost every innovation in history has an inheritor and Allaah raises mouthpieces for innovation, deviation and misguidance as a test and a trial for the people. But such mouthpieces do not present themselves as insincere enemies of Islam, otherwise the wisdom intended by Allaah (of putting people to trial with respect to sunnah and bid'ah) would not be realized, rather they present as the flagbearers and defenders of Islam who have with them much truth. These are people of ignorance in reality, yet they have flowery and glittering speech which bamboozles and dazzles. How great and amazing is what Imaam al-Barbahaaree said in Sharh al-Sunnah, "Beware of small innovations because they grow until they become large.This is the case with every innovation introduced in this Ummah. It began as something small, bearing resemblance to the truth which is why those who entered it were mislead and then were unable to leave it. So it grew and became the religion which they followed and thus deviated from the Straight Path and left Islaam." So beware and take admonition from the saying of Abdullaah bin Mas'ood (radiallaahu anhu), "Today, you are upon the fitrah, and you will innovate things and things will be innovated for you, so you must stick to the very first guidance." (Ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah 1/330). And from the greatest of innovated affairs is the principle of al-Jahm bin Safwan which is behind untold corruption (in belief), chaos and destruction (in the worldly affairs) and splitting and separation in the Ummah.