A Brief History of Heterodoxy
shaykh al-‘uthaymin*
The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, clarified to
people, in every way and respect, all that was revealed
to him from his Lord; whether they be matters large or
small, clear or subtle. He taught them all that they need-
ed to know with regards their food and drink, marriages,
dress, and living. For he taught them the ettiquettes of
eating and drinking, and the rules and conduct related
to marriage; sartorial issues; coming in or going out of
the house, etc. He taught them these things as he taught
them the essential acts of worship: purification, prayer,
fasting, zakåt and pilgrimage.
He also taught them what was essential for them in their
social dealings with others, such as kindness to parents,
maintaining ties of relations, good companionship, and
neighbourliness. He also instructed them in the rules of
buying and selling, pawning and mortgaging, renting
and leasing, gifts and endowments, and other like mat-
ters - so much so that Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased
with him, remarked: “Allah’s Messenger, peace be upon
him, passed away and there was not a bird flapping its
wings in the sky, except that he mentioned to us some
knowledge about it.”1 Also, in Ía˙•˙ Muslim, it was said
to Salmån al-Fars•, may Allah be pleased with him: Your
Prophet teaches you everything, even toilet manners!
To which he replied: “Yes indeed! And he forbade us to
face the direction of prayer (qiblah) whilst urinating or
defecating ...”2
Moreover, he also taught them the actual underpinning
of these ritual acts of worship, mannerisms, and social
transactions, which is: what people must believe in con-
cerning Allah; the Deity that they worship, in respect to
His Essence, Names, Attributes and Actions, and what
Creative Commons License, 2007
follows on from this in terms of those universal religious
rulings that are founded upon the profoundest wisdom
and the utmost mercy.
[RIGHTLY-GUIDED, RIGHTLY-GUIDING]
The Companions learnt all this from the Prophet, peace
be upon him; a pure, undiluted spring founded on the
perfect monotheism, which had as its basis two corner-
stones: that of affirmation (ithbåt) and negation (naf•).
As for affirmation, it is to affirm whatever is due to Allah
with regard to His Lordship, Divinity, Names, Attributes
and Acts. Negation meaning to negate any partner with
Allah in all that is due to Him.
After that came those who followed them in excellence,
including those who lived in the age of the Companions
as well as the rightly-guided Imams who came later, all
of whom merited Allah’s good pleasure. Allah, Exalted
is He, says: As for the foremost [in faith], the first of the
Emigrants and of the Helpers, and those who followed
them in excellence, Allah is well-pleased with them and
they, too, with Him. He has prepared for them gardens
beneath which rivers flow, wherein they shall dwell ever -
lasting. That is the supreme triumph.3
[A BRIEF HISTORY OF HETERODOXY]
After them, however, came a people who were blind to
the truth, or pretended to be blind; misguided, and mis-
guiding; incapable, or feigning inability; due to enmity
or wrongdoing - they innovated in the religion of Allah
that which had no part in it, in matters of beliefs, prac-
tices, and spiritual wayfaring. They did this by distort-
ing the clear-cut texts of the Book and the Sunnah; and
if that wasn’t possible, they rejected them entirely.
 2 WWW.JAWZIYYAH.COM
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “You should know
that, in general, those innovations connected to beliefs
and acts of worship (al-bida‘ al-muta‘allaqah bi’l-‘ul¥m
wa’l-‘ibådåt) made their appearance in the ummah at
the tail end of the rule of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, as
the Prophet, peace be upon him, prophesied when he
said: “He among you who lives long will witness many
controversies, so keep to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of
the Rightly-Guided Caliphs after me.”4 ... When the rule
of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs came to a close, and the
rule became one of kingship, defects began to appear
in the leaders and this inevitably crept into the learned
community (ahl al-‘ilm wa’l-d•n) as well.
“It was during the end of ‘Ali’s caliphate, may Allah be
pleased with him, that the heterodoxies of the Khawårij
(lit. “Seceders”) and the Råfi∂ah (“Rejectionists”) arose;
connected, as they were, to the question of leadership
and caliphate, and their implications in terms of actions
and rulings of the Sacred Law.5
“Mu’åwiyah’s kingship was a kingship of mercy. When
it ended, however, and political authority passed on to
Yaz•d, civil war erupted: Óusayn was killed in Iraq; the
battle of Óarra took place at Medina; and the siege of
Makkah occurred when Ibn al-Zubayr made a stand. At
Yaz•d’s death, the ummah fragmented. Ibn al-Zubayr
governed Makkah and Medina, the Banu Óakam con-
trolled Greater Syria, whilst Mukhtår b. Ab• ‘Ubayd and
others seized power in Iraq. All this occurred as the age
of the Companions was drawing to a close and only the
likes of ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbås, ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar, Jåbir
b. ‘Abd Allah, Abu Sa‘•d al-Khudr•, and a few others still
remained. It was at this time that the doctrinal innova-
tions of the Qadariyyah (“Dualists”) and the Murji’ah
(“Postponers”) started. These were duly refuted by the
remaining Companions ... who, prior to this, had con-
futed the doctrinal innovations of the Khawårij and the
Råfi∂ah.
“That which the Qadariyyah mostly spoke of related to
the question of a person’s free will; the same went for
the Murji’ah. Their dialectics centered on the question of
obedience and disobedience; believers and sinners; and
other issues which related to questions of al-asmå’ wa’l-
a˙kåm (lit. “Appellations and Judgements”) and al-wa‘d
Creative Commons License, 2007
wa’l-wa‘•d (“Promises and Threats”).6 Until then, none
had spoken about Allah or His Attributes, except in the
closing age of the minor Successors (ßighår al-tåbi‘•n):
which corresponds to the end of the Ummayad State
when the third generation - that of the Successor of the
Successors (tåbi‘ al-tåbi‘¥n) - was just commencing and
most of the Successors had, by then, passed away. The
first three generations are, in comparison to all the other
generations [of Muslims], the most moderate and most
balanced.
“Thus the majority of the Companions had passed away
by the close of the caliphate of the first Four Caliphs, so
that none remained from the participants of the battle
of Badr except a tiny remnant. Most of the Successors
who followed them in excellence had died by the end
of the period of the younger Companions; during the
rule of Ibn al-Zubayr and ‘Abd al-Målik [b. al-Marwån].
The bulk of the third generation were gone by the time
the Ummayad dynasty had ended and the Abbasid one
had just commenced. From here on in those that would
hold the office of executive political authority (wulåt al-
u m ¥ r), most of them would be of non-Arab stock. Many
of the affairs of state, too, passed out of the hands of the
Arabs. Whatsmore, some of the works of the non-Arabs
began to be translated into Arabic: those of the Persians,
Indians and Byzantines. What the Prophet, upon whom
be peace, foretold began then to manifest itself: “Then
lies will become prevalent such that a person shall give
testimony without being asked to do so, or take an oath
without it being sought from him.”7
“[It was in the era of the Successors that] three develop-
ments occurred: personal opinion (r a ’ y);8 rational the-
ology (k a l å m);9 and sufism (taßawwuf).10 The heresy of
the Jahmiyyah (“Negationists”) then took place, which
was the negation (naf•) of the Divine Attributes; as did
its opposite: anthropomorphism (tamth•l).”11
He later says: “Being aware of the foundation of things
and their underlying natures; and knowing the faith and
its fundamental principles, as well as what they give rise
to, is the most formidable type of knowledge in terms of
the benefit it accords. For if a person’s learning doesn’t
encompass the underlying reality of those matters he is
in need of, his heart will be riddled with thorns.”12
 3 WWW.JAWZIYYAH.COM
[A BRIEFER HISTORY]
Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:
“The innovation of the Qadariyyah appeared at the tail
end of the Companions’ era. Those of them who were
still alive, such as ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar; Ibn ‘Abbas; and
their like: may Allah be pleased with them, repudiated
their stance. Next came the innovation of the Murji’ah,
after the era of the Companions’ had ended. The Senior
Successors that faced it, spoke against it. Then came the
innovation of the Jahmiyyah, which occurred after the
time of the Successors. The affair reached alarming pro-
portions and its evil became widespread in the time of
the Imams, such as Imam A˙mad and other. After this,
the heresy of incarnation (˙ul¥l) made its appearance
during the age of Óusayn al-Óallåj. Now whenever Satan
sought to spread any of these innovations, or any other,
Allah raised-up those of His party and army to combat
them and warn the Muslims about them: this, as part of
sincerity to Allah, His Book and His Messenger; and out
of sincere counsel to the believers.”13
[AGE OF COMPILATION & CODIFICATION]
Ibn Óajr, may Allah have mercy upon him, writes in his
commentary to al-Bukhår•:
“From those sciences which newly developed were the
compilation of the hadiths (tadw•n al-˙ad•th), exegesis
(tafs•r) of the Qur’an, codifying issues of law (fiqh) that
sprung from pure, personal opinion (al-ra’y al-ma˙∂);
after which came the compilation of those matters con-
nected to the deeds of the heart. The first discipline was
objected to by ‘Umar, Abu M¥så, and a few others: most,
though, allowed it. The second was resisted by a group
of the Successors, like al-Sha‘b•. As for the third, it was
opposed by Imam A˙mad along with a tiny faction; with
A˙mad’s censure as intense with [some of] those in the
last science. Of a new development, also, was the com-
pilation of those statements regarding the basic articles
of faith (uߥl al-d•n, lit. “fundamentals of religion”). For
some were overly eager to affirm the Divine Attributes
or to negate them. The first faction exaggerated in this
regard and thus fell into anthropomorphism (shabbaha,
t a s h b • h); the second went into extremes and negated
(‘a††la, ta‘†•l) Allah’s Attributes. Now the repudiation of
kalåm by the Predecessors (salaf) was severe indeed,
such as from Abu Óan•fah, Abu Y¥suf and al-Shåfi‘•, and
Creative Commons License, 2007
their words in censure of the partisans of rational theol-
ogy (ahl al-kalåm) are well known. The cause of this is
that the practioners of k a l å m discussed matters that the
Prophet, peace be upon him, and his Companions never
spoke of. It is confirmed from Målik that neither in the
age of the Prophet, upon whom be peace, nor in that of
Abu Bakr or ‘Umar, did such false desires - that is to say,
the doctrinal innovations of the Khawårij, Råfi∂ah and
Qadariyyah - ever exist.14 Those that came after the first
three excellent generations widened the scope in many
an issue which the leading Successors, and their imme-
diate followers, had taken exception to. They [the late-
comers] did not rest content until they mingled Greek
philosophical notions with the theology of faith; taking
the words of the philosophers as their standard against
which all else was to be judged. So whatever conflicted
with it from the transmitted texts (åthår) was explained
away figuratively, no matter how repugnant it was. Nor
did they rest here. For they then claimed that what they
had devised was the noblest branch of learning and the
one most deserving of being learnt, and that those who
did not employ their concepts were nothing more than
ignorant commoners.
“Yet felicity is for the one who holds firmly to what the
Predecessors were upon and avoids whatever the later-
commers innovated. If he cannot avoid it, let him take
from it [i.e. kalåm]15 only what is necessary, and let his
intended goal be the original path.”16
◆ ◆ ◆
TRANSLATOR’S NOTES
* Muhammad b. Íåli˙ al-‘Uthaym•n, Taqr•b al-Tadmuriyyah
(Cairo: Maktabah al-Sunnah, 1992), 7-14. Hadith sourcings and
verifications by: Sayyid b. ‘Abbas al-Jal•m•; translation and anno-
tations: Surkheel Sharif.
1. Ibn Óanbal, Musnad, 5:153; Ibn Óibbån, Ía˙•˙, no.65; and
its chain of narration is authentic (ßa˙•˙).
2. Muslim, Ía˙ª˙, no.267.
3. Qur’an 9:100.
4. Abu Dåw¥d, no.4607; al-Tirmidh•, no.2676, who declared
it to be ßa˙•˙.
5. Initially, the Khawårij and Råfi∂ah were not theologians
in the conventional sense of the term; nor did their thoughts and
ideas come about in abstracto. Instead their views were closely
bound to the then contemporary political situation. It was only
 4 WWW.JAWZIYYAH.COM
at a later date that their dissenting views were constructed into
full blown theologies.
These, and other creedal innovations, are documented in the
standard writings on heresiology: al-Baghdåd•, al-Farq Bayna’l-
Firaq; al-Shahrastån•, al-Milal wa’l-Ni˙al; al-Ash‘ar•, Maqålåt al-
Islåmiyy•n.
6. The question of al-asmå’ wa’l-a˙kåm is best reflected in
the theological controversy first posed by the Khawårij: Is some-
one who commits a mortal sin (kab•rah) still considered to be a
believer, or does he become a disbeliever by that? The Khawårij
held that the appellation of faith no longer applies to such a per-
son; in other words, one becomes a disbeliever due to it. The
Mu‘tazilah (“Rationalists”) opined that such a person is neither a
believer nor a disbeliever, but is in a “position between these two
positions - al-manzilah bayn al-manzilatayn”. The Murji’ah
held that such a person remains a perfect believer, since sins do
not affect faith (•mån). Muslim orthodoxy; i.e. Ahl al-Sunnah
wa’l-Jamå‘ah state that such a person is still a Muslims, but is a
sinful Muslim; a believer with deficient faith. Their view finds its
most famous articulation in Imam al-Ta˙åw•’s creedal statement:
“We do not declare anyone among the people of our qibla a dis-
believer for any sin, as long as they do not deem it lawful. Nor
do we opine that where there is faith, a sin does not harm the sin-
ner.” Cf. The Creed of Imam al-Ta˙åw• (USA: Zaytuna Institute,
2007), 64; nos.75-6.
As for al-wa‘d wa’l-wa‘•d, the Mu‘tazilah held that Allah was
under the absolute obligation to carry out the threat and punish
the sinner. Orthodoxy states that those who commit a mortal sin
are under Allah’s will; or mash•’ah: If He wills, He forgives t h e m
by His grace; or if He wills, He punishes them by His justice. Cf.
The Creed of Imam al-Ta˙åw•, no.86.
7. Al-Tirmidh•, no.2165, who gave it a grading of ßa˙•˙; Ibn
Måjah, no.2363.
8. Reasoned opinion, or ra’y, in terms of jurisprudence and
legal doctrine, refers to one of two things. Firstly, personal opin-
ion which is based on practical considerations, but bound to no
authoritative proof-text. This is the ra’y that finds censure with
juridic orthopraxy. Secondly, a reasoned, textualist opinion bas-
ing itself on practical considerations, and rooted in authoritative
proof-texts and a sound juristic methodology. This latter ra’y is
identical to the concepts of ijtihåd and qiyåß.
For a discussion on the development of ra’y in Islam’s juris-
tic legacy, cf. Shåh Wal• Allah, Óujjat Allåh al-Bålighah (Beirut:
Dår al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2001), 1:274-83; Hallaq, A History of
Islamic Legal Theories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005), 19-20.
9. Ibn Khald¥n, Muqaddimah (Beirut: Dår al-Fikr, 1998), 440;
defines kalåm as: “This is the science which involves arguing in
defense of the articles of faith, through the use of rational proofs,
in refuting the innovators who have deviated in their beliefs from
those of the Predecessors (salaf) and Sunni Orthodoxy (ahl al-
sunnah).” Rational arguments in defense of orthodoxy is a type
of kalåm which may be termed ‘discursive theology’. It is when
reason (‘aql) is subordinate to, and used in defense of, tenets of
faith established in the revelatory texts (naql). A second type of
kalåm also exists: ‘speculative theology’. This is where philo-
sophical reasoning is used to infer, from first principles, the real-
ity of God and the nature of Being. This kalåm of the philoso-
Creative Commons License, 2007
phers was rejected by the theologians of Ahl al-Sunnah and was
deemed an utter heresy. Such distinction between the two types
of kalåm has been the normative juristic take for most of Islam’s
history. There have, though, always been some jurists through-
out the ages who vehemently rejected any sort of kalåm usage
in doctrinal matters: like the Shåfi‘•, Ibn Khuzaymah; the Målik•,
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr; and the Óanbal•, Ibn Qudåmah. They opined
that the words of the Predecessors in censure of kalåm make no
distinction between one form or the other; instead, theirs was an
absolute rejection of it. Cf. Jåmi‘ Bayån al-‘Ilm (Beirut: Dår al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, n.d.), 2:95-6.
Of all the schools of law affiliated with Sunni Orthodoxy, and
of all the jurist-cum-theologians, it is the Óanbal•s who are m o s t
associated with the outright rejection of k a l å m . However, as Ibn
Mufli˙ - a prominent Óanbal• authority - reveals, the issue is not
that cut and dry. In his al-Ådåb al-Shar‘iyyah (Beirut: Mu’asasah
al-Risålah, 1996), 1:219-29, Ibn Mufli˙ devotes an entire section
to the topic. After citing a volley of reports from Imam A˙mad b.
Óanbal showing his utter repudiation of kalåm and its praction-
ers, Ibn Mufli˙ then quotes Ibn Ab• Ya‘lå as saying (p.226) there
is an actual difference about this; and that: “What is correct in the
school is that the use of kalåm is legislated and prescribed, and
is lawful to employ in debating the innovators.” He ascribes this
position to Qå∂• Abu Ya’lå, al-Tam•m•, and other verificationists
(mu˙aqiq•n) of the school. One of the proofs marshalled from
Imam A˙mad to buttress this contention is his book, Radd ‘ala’l-
Zanådiqah “wherein he argues using rational proofs.” Scholars
who hold this view say that this demonstrates: “what the earlier
scholars held to of Ahmad’s stance was later abrogated.” This, in
accordance with Allah’s words [16:125]: And reason with them in
the best of manners. Towards the end of the section, Ibn Mufli˙
cites Ibn Óamdån from his al-Muft• wa’l-Mustaft•, saying: “The
censured type of kalåm in issues relating to the basic articles of
faith is to speak about them solely based on the intellect, or in a
manner contradicting well authenticated texts. But if it is speech
on a textual basis, or upon rational arguments which conform to
the texts, then this is the foundations of true faith and the path
of Ahl al-Sunnah.” Ibn Taymiyyah is also cited as saying that the
Predecessors’ rejection of k a l å m was not due to its new-fangled
terminology, but rather their vagueness.
10. For a concise historical development of sufism, consult:
al-Shå†ib•, al-I‘tißåm (Saudi Arabia: Dår Ibn ‘Affån, 1995), 1:119-
132, 265-69; Ibn Khald¥n, Muqaddimah, 426-72.
11. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majm¥‘ Fatåwå (Riyadh: Dår ‘Ålam al-
Kutub, 1991), 10:354-7.
12. ibid. 10:368.
13. Tahdh•b Sunan Abu Dåw¥d, 7:61; no.4527.
14. Obviously, in this actual period the political climate never
presented itself for such innovations to arise. Instead, what Ibn
Óajr is alluding to here is the reason why the Predecessors never
fell into creedal deviations; which is due to their attitude of “tark
al-ta’w•l wa luz¥m al-tasl•m: leaving interpretation and cleaving
to resignation.” Cf. The Creed of Imam al-Ta˙åw•, no.44.
15. Here, Ibn Óajr seems to be echoing that Ghazålian pre-
scription about the use of kalåm: useful in moderation; harmful
in large doses.
16. Fat˙ al-Bår• Shar˙ Ía˙•˙ al-Bukhår• (Beirut: Dår al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1989), 13:315.