Three Theological Treatises

...[they were] more diligent than anyone else in laying the foundations for the rules of religious obligations and inheritance. One necessarily learns from these principles that the truth is what they said, and the correct path is what they intended. This is especially true as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) praised them, saying: "The best of people are those of my generation, then those who follow them, then those who follow them." He also said: "My community will split into seventy-some sects; only one of them will be saved." It was asked, "Who are they?" and he replied: "The People of the Sunnah and the Community" original: "Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah"; this term refers to the mainstream body of Muslims following the prophetic tradition. It was then asked, "And what is the People of the Sunnah and the Community?" to which he replied: "That which I and my companions are upon today."

The Second Proof
This is the detailed proof. We say: since we have determined that the truth is the school of the predecessors original: "madhhab al-salaf", and that their school consists of assigning seven duties original: "waza'if"; refers to specific religious and intellectual responsibilities to the common folk original: "awam"; the non-specialist public regarding the outward appearance of ambiguous reports original: "al-akhbar al-mutashabihah"; verses or traditions that seem to describe God with human attributes like 'hands' or 'sitting', and since we have mentioned the proof for each of these duties and the reasons why they are true—who then would oppose this?

I wonder, would one oppose our first point: that the commoner must practice sanctification original: "al-taqdis"; purifying the concept of God from any physical likeness by denying God has a body or resembles physical objects? Or our second point: that he must practice affirmation and faith in what the Messenger (peace be upon him) said, in the sense that the Messenger intended? Or our third point: that he must admit his inability to grasp the true nature of those meanings? Or our fourth point: that he must remain silent, avoiding questions and diving into what is beyond his capacity? Or our fifth point: that he must restrain his tongue from altering the outward texts through addition, subtraction, combining, or separating? Or our sixth point: that he must restrain his heart from thinking about these matters, given his inability to understand them? For it has been said: "Reflect upon the creation of God, but do not reflect upon the Essence of God." Or our seventh point: that he must submit to the people of knowledge, including the Prophets, the saints, and the deeply rooted scholars? These are matters for which we have clarified the proofs, and no one is able to deny them.

And our denial, if it came from a person of discernment—let alone from the wise and the learned—would be [impossible]. These then are the...

The Second Pattern: The Traditional Proof

Regarding this, the method of argument is to say: the evidence that the truth lies in the school of the predecessors is that its opposite is innovation original: "bid'ah"; in this context, it refers to introducing new, unauthorized theological interpretations, and innovation is blameworthy and a form of misguidance. Delving into interpretations original: "ta'wil"; the practice of explaining away the literal meaning of scripture among the common folk—and the scholars encouraging them to do so—is an innovation. Therefore, its opposite—which is to abstain from such things—is a praiseworthy tradition original: "sunnah".

Here there are three principles. The first is that searching, investigating, and questioning these matters is an innovation. The second is that every innovation is blameworthy. The third is that if an innovation is blameworthy, its opposite—the ancient Sunnah—is praiseworthy. It is impossible to dispute any of these principles. If they are accepted, it results in the conclusion that the truth is the school of the predecessors.

If it is asked: "How can you refute someone who denies that innovation is blameworthy, or denies that searching and investigating is an innovation?"—thus challenging the first two principles while accepting the third because of its clarity—we say: the proof for establishing the first principle (that innovation is blameworthy) is the consensus of the entire community original: "ijma'"; the universal agreement of Muslim scholars on condemning innovation, rebuking the innovator, and shaming those known for it. This is understood as a necessity of the Sacred Law; it is not a matter of mere guesswork. The Prophet's condemnation of innovation is known through mass-transmission original: "tawatur"; a report so widely supported by different sources that it is impossible for it to be a lie based on the sum total of reports that provide certain knowledge. Even if individual reports might be open to interpretation, their collective weight is like our knowledge of the courage of Ali, the generosity of Hatim, or the Prophet’s love for Aisha. Such things are known with certainty through individual reports that reached such a high number that the possibility of their narrators lying is inconceivable, even if the individual reports themselves were not mass-transmitted. This is similar to what was narrated from the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) when he said: "Cling to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs after me; bite onto it with your molars."