Imam Zaid Shakir: Answer to a “Salafi” Brother
Imam Zaid Shakir (May Allah 
increase him), answers questions raised to him by a “Salafi” brother regarding the status of Ibn Taymiyya, tariqas, his position on the Hadith of the Seventy-three sects, and view on the Ash’aris.
Source: New Islamic Directions
Recently, while attending a gathering of Muslims that was otherwise characterized by brotherly love and goodwill, I was hounded by a “Salafi” who angrily demanded that I answer his questions, to “qualify my position.” To me this was a sad and pathetic episode. I am not one to get caught up in what is usually a counterproductive endeavor, because it likely leads to a series of bitter responses and refutations, and wastes valuable time a Muslim should be spending to do righteous deeds for the benefit of his or her soul.
However, having promised to answer the brother, I will briefly respond. I pray that Allah makes these lines beneficial. I am traveling and answering from my head so a few minor mistakes might appear, please forgive me for those.
Q: What do you say about Ibn Taymiyya?
A: Ibn Taymiyya , may Allah have mercy on him, was a pious man, a great scholar, and a prolific writer….
Most of his career was spent in Damascus. He was a staunch defender of the Hanbali approach in creed (‘Aqida), an approach based on a reliance on the transmitted evidence of the Qur’an and Sunnah to establish and defend theological positions. Although he was himself a Hanbali, he differed from the mainstream of the school in many issues related to creed and jurisprudence. For example, despite the Hanbalis’ staunch condemnation of speculative theology (‘Ilm al-Kalam) Ibn Taymiyya was a fervent Mutakallim, or speculative theologian, as is evidence in his Fatawa and many of his treatises such as Minhaj as-Sunnah.
His defenders claim that he only studied and employed the language of the speculative theologians, the logicians and others to refute his opponents. However, this is the exact argument of those he condemns for employing the language and analytical framework of the philosophers, such as the Mu’tazila and the Ash’aris. They argued that they were only employing the language of their opponents to effectively refute them. His deep involvement in speculative theology drew strong condemnation from many of his fellow Hanbalis.
Ibn Taymiyya’s theology contained many deviations from the agreed upon theological positions of the Sunni Muslims. For example in his critique of Ibn Hazm’s work, Naqd Maratib al-‘Ijma (Critique of the Levels of Consensus), he mentions that the Throne, and implies that other created things, have a preexisting eternal nature, something all Muslims have held to be an attribute of Allah alone.
He also insisted on “constituting” the Divine as a physical body, by emphasizing the reality (Haqiqiyya) of his various attributes, along with an insistence on physical boundaries to contain and define his essence, to such an exaggerated extent that one would be led to envision Him (Allah ) as resembling His creation, in violation of the fundamental rule governing our understanding of those attributes, Laysa Kamithlihi Shay’un (There is nothing like unto Him) (Qur’an 42:11). For these and other innovations in ‘Aqida, Ibn Taymiyya was strongly condemned by many of the scholars his time and imprisoned several times to force his repentance.
He also differed from the consensus of the Sunni scholars on legal issues. An example would be his ruling that three simultaneously-issued divorce pronouncements constituted a single revocable divorce. On these and similar matters he contravened the established consensus of the Sunni Muslims. Such legal verdicts only add to the controversial nature of Ibn Taymiyya.
The problem with taking Ibn Taymiyya as the standard for judging the correctness of the creed of the Muslims is that he is an extremely controversial figure, who himself was condemned and tried by the scholars of his age for what they viewed as defective ‘Aqida. As ‘Aqida is based on clearly understood, communally transmitted (Mutawatir) texts and positions, the controversial nature of many of his positions and decrees indicates his deviation from that which has been communally transmitted. As a result, by accepting many of his positions, we are implicitly forced to condemn multitudes Muslims to Hell. This would include those who lived in the generations who preceded him, including many of the Salaf. This is a dangerous and untenable position.
We are enjoined to have a good opinion of all Muslims; owing to the power of La ilaha Illa Allah Muhammad Rasulullah therefore I pray that Ibn Taymiyya repented from anything that would jeopardize his salvation. May Allah reward Ibn Taymiyya for his good, forgive and overlook his wrong, and accept his repentance.
Q: What does Tariqa mean?
A: A Tariqa is generally understood by the people of Tasawwuf to mean an organized brotherhood (whose members usually include women) dedicated to pursuing a systematic path of spiritual growth and excellence, based on an emphasis on certain religious practices, under the direction of a qualified scholar—Sheikh. For example, some Tariqas may emphasize Qur’an, others Dhikr, others taking the strictest opinions in matters of worship (‘Azima), others may emphasize voluntary prayer, fasting, silence, etc.
Tariqas arose because their advocates felt that people were drifting away from the essence of Islam, which in their view was the systematic refinement of the human soul (an-Nafs), to rid it of its vices and imperfections, thereby removing the barriers preventing it from the attainment of Paradise. This refinement was a movement away from the Qur’anic state described as the Nafs Ammara bis-Su’ (soul urging vileness—Qur’an 12:53), towards the Nafs Mutma’inna (contended soul—Qur’an 89:27).
Tariqas are an institutional development that occurs late in Islamic history. Like all institutions introduced for the intended benefit of the Muslims i.e. orphanages, Qur’an schools, universities, etc., Tariqas can be in conformity with the dictates of the divine law and therefore, religiously praiseworthy; or they can contravene the divine law, and therefore, be religiously condemnable. This is the nature of all significant human institutions.
Certain factors led to the rise and popularity of Tariqas during the centuries they were widespread. Similarly, many factors such as the advent of the secular state in most Muslim lands, and the spread of fundamentalist thought has led to a great reduction in the number and influence of Tariqas contemporarily.
A question closely associated with the one under discussion would be, “Is it religiously mandatory for a Muslim to belong to a Tariqa, or more specifically to take a Sheikh as a spiritual guide?” This is a question that has occupied many scholars during the latter period of Islam. The great scholar, Imam Ash-Shatibi, the author of al-‘Itisam, one of the greatest treatises outlining what constitutes acceptable and blameworthy innovations, issued a formal written inquiry to the scholars of the Islamic realm during his lifetime asking this very question. Dar al-Fikr al-Mu’asir has published the responses to his question by Ibn Khaldun, and Ibn ‘Abbad ar-Rundi, two of the greatest scholars of that day, in a book entitled Shifa’ as-Sa’il.
Many scholars say is that a person does not have to have a Sheikh, or implicitly belong to a Tariqa, to mature spiritually. They maintain that a regimen of Qur’an recitation, dhikr, night prayer, and voluntary fasting is sufficient to ensure a believer’s spiritual progress. They hold the idea of taking a Sheikh as a spiritual guide to be a blameworthy innovation. Others opine that if that person is unable to make spiritual progress on his own he must find a guide who can assist him. Otherwise, a lack of sincerity (Ikhlas) in his worship, the possession of blameworthy character traits such as lying, backbiting, a bad opinion of others, etc., and dying with an diseased heart will make one’s attainment of Paradise problematic. They see the assistance of a Sheikh as being absolutely essential for the attainment of one of the great objectives of the divine law. Both sides usher their proofs and advance their arguments. One of the most powerful arguments for having a Sheikh is advanced by Ibn ‘Abbad Ar-Rhundi in his response to Imam ash-Shatibi’s inquiry, and one of the most eloquent arguments against the incumbency of having a Sheikh is made by Sheikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah in his introduction to Imam al-Muhasibi’s, Risala al-Mustarshideen.
I say that if a person is able to mature spiritually and be upright in his religion without a formal affiliation to a Tariqa or a Sheikh, in his case that is closer to intent and spirit of the divine law. However, if one is unable to do so and can find a Tariqa and a Sheikh who are committed to the Qur’an, Sunnah, and adhere strictly to the divine law, in his case involvement with the Tariqa and following the guidance of the Sheikh are closer to the intent and spirit of the divine law. Surely, Allah knows best.
Q: What is your position of the Hadith of the Seventy-three sects?
A: This Hadith is a warning against sectarianism. The mentioning of seventy-three, although generally meaning a large number, is understood literally by some scholars who in their books of heresies try to meticulously delineate seventy-three sects among the Muslims. As far as using this Hadith to exclaim the virtue of one group of the Muslims over others, by the exclaiming group declaring themselves to be the only ones upon that which the Prophet, peace upon him, and his companions were on, this is a vain exercise in that proves absolutely nothing.
In ‘Aqida, all groups can point out with strong arguments the “innovations” of their opponents. Anyone believing otherwise is unfamiliar with the intellectual history of the Muslim community. In worship, even if someone were absolute certain that they are doing everything exactly as the Prophet, peace upon him, and his companions, he does not know if his internal state matches theirs and therefore he does not know if any of his acts are accepted by Allah . For example, when the verse, Rather, Allah only accepts from the righteous (5:27) was revealed, many of the companions were deeply shaken for they would never assume that they were among the righteous. This humble spirit was an essential part of their religion, which is severely lacking in many of those who use the hadith of the seventy-three sects to proclaim themselves the saved sect (al-Firqa an-Najiya) while condemning others to Hell.
Speaking of humility, one of the things that the Prophet, peace upon him, and his companions were on in their religion was humility. This is an integral aspect of the religion, as affirmed by the Hadith of Hudhayfa, may Allah be pleased with him, “The first knowledge to be lost from the religion is humility (Khushu’).” The assumption of many of those who use the hadith in questions to proclaim their salvation while condemning other Muslims to Hell is an indication that they may be lacking in Khushu’, and therefore are not on, in their religion, what the Prophet, peace upon him, and his companions were on.
One of the greatest tribulations Allah can afflict a servant with is to preoccupy him with the faults of others, and blind him to his own faults. While he points out what he perceives to be the flaws of other’s religion and beliefs, he neglects his own and therefore meets Allah with his own faults unchecked. In my opinion, this Hadith is one of the means that is contemporarily used to do just that. Surely, Allah knows best.
Q: What do you say about the Ash’aris?
A: Any comment on the “Ash’aris” has to be prefaced by mentioning the fact that the term Ash’ari is extremely broad, and encompasses a lot of historically relevant nuances that are missed by the average Muslim, and by most of those who issue blanket condemnations of the “Ash’aris.” For example the Ash’arism of the Abu’l Hasan al-Ash’ari of al-Lum’a differs from the Ash’arism of the Abu’l Hasan al-Ash’ari of al-Ibana. The Ash’arism of Ibn Fawrak differs from the Ash’arism of Imam al-Bayhaqi. The Ash’arism of Imam al-Qushayri—who affirmed the 20 essential Attributes of God that constitute the basis of the Ash’ari refutation of the Mu’tazila, and also affirmed all of the names and attributes of Allah conveyed by valid texts, a caveat that has become the basis for one of the Salafi critiques of the Ash’aris—differs from the Ash’arism” of al-Baqqalani, whose “Ash’arism” in turn differs from that of latter day scholars such as Imam al-Bayjuri. These wide differences have to be known and understood before one can profitably begin speaking of the Ash’aris. Ash’arism also has its own internal critics. For example, no one has more effectively critiqued the Ash’aris, on certain points, than Imam Al-Ghazali.
Another issue that has to be understood is that Ash’arism has always seen itself as an intellectual defense of the beliefs of Ahli’s Sunnah. To understand its more philosophical arguments, one has to be thoroughly conversant with both neo-Platonic philosophy and Aristotelian logic. To attempt to understand the historical evolution of Ash’arism without those intellectual prerequisites is an exercise in futility that will inevitable lead to inaccurate conclusions.
As far as the basic principles that unite Ash’aris, two have primacy. The first is that revelation can be affirmed by intellect, but when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two, revelation has to be given primacy. This is a conclusion substantiated by the Qur’an and Hadith and has provided the basis for the Ash’aris both beating back the intellectual challenge of various sects such as the Mu’tazila, the Isma’ilis and others, while affirming the integrity of divine revelation.
The second is that Allah is transcendent above any likeness. This principle is also rooted in the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. That transcendence has been articulated with the aid of two processes. One is by deputing unto Allah the knowledge of any text whose superficial understanding might imply drawing a likeness between Allah and His creation. This is known as Tafwid. The second is interpreting such a text in a way that is supported by its linguistic meaning, while warding off the ability to draw any likeness unto Allah . This is known as Ta’wil.
Contemporarily, there is a concerted effort to demonstrate that Tafwid was not a valid interpretive approach known among the early generations of Muslims. Rather, their school was more accurately defined as Taslim, or submission to the literal meaning of the text. Delving into the specifics of that discussion is beyond what has been asked here. However, distinguishing between Tafwid and Taslim is an issue I am mindful of and perhaps could discuss in another context.
Some of the particular instances relating to how these two principles (Tafwid and Ta’wil) actually were articulated throughout history are debatable. But the principles themselves were the unifying universals that provided the basis for the evolution of Ash’arism into an identifiable intellectual school. However, it is of little use for Muslims to become bogged down in the condemnation or rejection of those particulars, something very common in our day. Those particulars, while conveying deep insights, such as al-Baqqalani’s atomic theory, would be viewed as intellectual curiosities if introduced in contemporary philosophical debate.
Similarly, it is of little use for students of sacred knowledge to limit their studies of theological and philosophical issues to the books of classical Ash’aris, such as Imam al-Jurjani’s commentary on al-Iji’s al-Mawaqif. Although that text and similar ones are of tremendous historical value, they do little to prepare the student to engage in a high level philosophical defense of Islam based on contemporary philosophical schools of thought. He or she would be far more effective if they mastered the basics of ‘Aqida, studied the foundations of classical Greek philosophy, understood the arguments of the Muslim philosophers, the Mu’tazila, Ash’aris, and others, and then mastered contemporary philosophical schools and their critiques with the objective of issuing a strong Islamic critique of those schools.
This latter approach, in my view is Fard Kifayah, or a communal obligation that must be undertaken by some members of the community on behalf of the rest. Doing so will allow Muslims to meaningfully engage in the deeper philosophical debates that are shaping the intellectual landscape of our times. It will also allow for the development of a body of literature that will defend the faith from high level very sophisticated attacks that are undermining the faith of some Muslims, many of whom eventually leave Islam because they have no effective Muslim responses to the philosophical and intellectual attacks being directed at Islam.
Are the Ash’aris to be considered “deviants?” I think the best answer to that question is provided by the Prophet, peace upon him, himself. He said, “Constantinople will be conquered—what an excellent army is that conquering army! And what an excellent commander is its commander!” This hadith is related by Imam Hakim in al-Mustadrak and is affirmed by Imam adh-Dhahabi, which is a clear indication of its soundness (I am aware of al-Albani’s rejection of this hadith. However, his rejection does not negate Imam ad-Dhahabi’s affirmation). This hadith is understood by the scholars to be a reference to Muhammad al-Fatih, the great Turkish general. Hence, the Prophet is praising an individual who is Ash’ari in creed, a Qadiri Sufi, and an adherent to the Hanafi School of jurisprudence, along with his army, most of whom had the same affiliations. There can be no higher mark of approval for the acceptability of Ash’arism, Tasawwuf (that is consistent with the divine law), and adhering to a Madhhab. Surely, Allah knows best.
In summary, I believe that collectively the Ash’aris have defended Islamic beliefs against attacks from myriad directions, and have provided the basis for the development of a stable and unifying intellectual tradition. Hence, I have the utmost respect for their work and their contribution to the Islamic venture, and consider any innovations that their methodology involved as praiseworthy innovations. However, some of their particular arguments are debatable and others are no longer of any efficacy in terms of contributing to meaningful Muslim participation in contemporary intellectual and philosophical discourse. The challenge for Muslims today is to take the universals that guided the Ash’ari project and use them as the basis for the articulation of particular arguments that are relevant to our times.
This is what I have to say in response to these questions that were advanced by the “Salafi” brother. I hope that they were posed in sincerity as I have endeavored to answer with sincerity. If he is looking for my answers to his questions I have presented those answers. If he is looking for anything other than that I depute the affair to Allah . In the end, surely He knows best.
[...] My Paintings/Michael crohn’s gallery, placed an interesting blog post on Imam Zaid Shakir: Answer to a â??Salafiâ?? Brother [...]
Some silly salafi was salivating for some sweet takfir but was denied.
Imam Zaid is awesome, masha’Allah
.
“Some silly salafi was salivating for some sweet takfir but was denied.”
wow, is this wat Imam Zaid teaches, im surprised i thought sufis were more kind…
I must say a well thought out response by Imam Zaid.
I wonder what the refutation is to what people believe Ibn Taymiyyah believes.
We have yet to find out……
Always, listen to two sides of the story…
but then again this is all fruitless (usually).
it is a good thing that salafis don’t listen to one scholar alone(you need to listen to more than one to get a broad view and a more glimps of the truth).
I am sorry to say, he has said incorrec tthings about Ibn Taymiyyah, one of the greatest without question scholars in Islamic history.
The reason for imprisonment? Well, Ahmed Bin Hanbal was imprisoned for saying the Qur’aan is not created and is a word of Allaah ‘aza wa jal.
I just hope people would wake up and smell the coffee rather than blindly buying into the conjectures suggested by their various scholars.
i am glad I dont follow one personality or the other. Please be floaters and you’ll be better off for your own sanity
I think the article was a very scholastic one and very balanced, which deserves a respect and appreciation. If one enters into any affair with the mentality of “GROUP” then they will find fault with anything that may appear to be in “opposition” to what is the normal “GROUP” thought or practice. We need to rise above the “GROUP” “US/THEM” mentality and learn to live with the intellectual, scholastic, spiritual differences in this Ummah. There have come and gone many many Scholars from various walks of life and seen things in the Deen different from other great Scholars of their times. Its not for me here to go into detail about that, but just study the Deen, at a serious level. and will find the truth of this mattrer. As it relates to this article, is based on the mature and professional approach of a Scholar, and although there were some level of critique against a great Scholar of the past, it was done with fairness, supported evidence from the time of that Scholar and most of of with Adab and a desire for clarification. Imam Zaid in no way did he villify of disparage Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and the onlyu ones that cannot see that are those who have been consumed by the “GROUP” mentality and only looking for something to use to promote their “GROUP”. It sounds like this was the intent fro the questions in the first place. Muslims, rise above your one Shaikh, rise above your one book (that you have read), rise above your one Masjid (that you ONLY attend), rise above your province, rise above your one Ayah or Hadith that you want to use against everyone outside of your “GROUP” and make a serious, sincere effort towards your ONE Lord. This is what it is all about at the end of the day. If one differs with Imam Zaid, or Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah or any other, that is fine, Allah
will not question us on that great day about these well respected, honored men of Islam, but Allah 
will question us about us, so focus on that while benefitting from what we can gain from these men, and take their good and leave other than that. May Allah 
guide us all to what is pleasing to Him.
Salam,
JazzakAllah khair for the comments Abu Zahra.
One of the problems we have in the west is that we do not how to differentiate a student of knowledge from a true scholar. With all due respect to Imam Shakir, he is not a Scholar. He is knowledgeable but not a Scholar. What he said about Ibn Taymiyyah was careless and, no, it was not Scholastic; come on, making such accusations on a celebrated Scholar of Islam on a plane without giving proper evidences, Scholarly?! SubhanAllah. I am not a Salafi, nor a Sufi or anyone other ism, I am a muslim who is trying to learn his religion. I advise brothers and sisters to read what Ibn Taymiyyah said on those issues that he is being accused from His OWN books rather than hearing from other people.
Wassalam
Wa Alaikumus Salaam my Brother Muslim. Thank you for the response and the adab therein, much appreciated, May Allah
give you increase in khair.
I few points about your response;
First, is that I totally agree about the distinction between a student and a Scholar. This has caused untold damage on the Ummah in this time. Also one of the modern day problems is the methods of learning and gaining the permission or recognition to impart knowledge. And here is where the problem occurs in knowing who is a student and who has reached a level higher than that. Now my Brother, this is not about Imam Zaid as much as it is not About Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah, but since we have arrived at this issue through the article of Imam Zaid concerning some comments presented about Skaikh Ibn Taymiyyah then by default they will be discussed. Now my point about learning and gaining a valid permission to impart the knbowledge of this Deen, then I suppose we know about the tradition of the Salaf that when a student has completed various text on various sciences at a satisfactory and esteemed level, at the feet of a Shaikh, then that student was given Ijaza by the Shaikh with an isnad of Shuyukh back to the Salaf on that text. This system was a qualifying method of knowing who was mereley (and i dont mean merely in a low way, for every student has a honorable status) a student and who had excelled above that. Now Imam Zaid has received several Ijazaat from high rank esteemed Scholars of this Ummah in various sciences in different parts of the Muslim lands. So with all due respect to Imam Zaid Shakir, who I do know personally and have spent some time with, the Imam is far more than a student. Rather the Imam has students of his own on very advanced levels of learning in this Deen. Now I am just noting this because for one, you commented on it and two, as a premise so that people who may not know, this is a respected Scholar here in the West.
Secondly, as for saying that what Imam Zaid said about the Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah was careless, then I don’t agree with that my Brother, not careless. Imam Zaid stated before his comments on Shaikh ibn Taymiyyah that he was a pious and great Scholar. Imam Zaid has in several of his material defend and clarified positions of the Shaikh that others have outright condemed him for. And moreover, Imam Zaid has a celebrated translation of a great work by one of the students of Ibn Taymiyyah, that being Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali and his worked titled: Warathatul-Anbiyaa (Heirs of the Prophets). So by no means was this some careless attack on the Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah. Rather it was an open answer to a question that was posed about the Shaikh. Now Allah
says in the Qur’an “O you who believe, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you…” Moreover, what Imam Zaid stated was not the sole sentiments of Imam Zaid, but rather a reflection of thoughts and positions from what was noted from the Scholars during the time and shortly after the time of Ibn Taymiyyah. And these are known, and again noted by known Scholars of this Ummah. But this is not even the issue. The problem really comes into site when we see that people have a very difficult time accepting that ‘their” Shaikh (whomever it may be) can have critique levelled against them in some thing or another. Although it is often quoted (moreso against another position of a Shaikh other than the one of their own), it is never applied, and that is the famous statement of Imam Malik, when he said; Everybody can be refuted, except the Messenger of Allah 
(S). So if “our” Shaikh said something and some critisize him then whoever made the critisizm against “our” Shaikh there is some problem with them. This type of approach to the Deen is what is careless. For there were Scholars during the time of the Shaikh that had critisizm in him in some things but still sat in his circles of learning. They sat with the Shaikh and took from him, even though they had critique with him in other matters, and these were great Imams and Scholars of the time. And so was the case with Ibn Taymiyyah, there were Scholars that he blamed in some areas but recognized their Scholarship and high rank in the Ummah. So, people have to learn how to be more tolerant, and that is the bottom line!
And finally, about the”ism” again I totally agree with you and this is one of our biggest problems as an Ummah today; the “Name” affiliation. This in itself is a whole topic and I am sure I took up enough time and space here, but I pray some benefit came out of it to some. May Allah
increase us all in the good that is pleasing to Him, and protect us from the evil that is displeasing to Him. Forgive our sgortcomings, extend our good actions and purify our intentions in every affair.
Ma Salaam
Salam,
JazzakAllah khair. However, when I say he was careless; I am not undermining him. He himself demonstrated that it was the wrong thing to by deleting the post from his site.
I do not consider Ibn Taymiyyah an angel but again you say Scholars refuted him. The Imam who responded to him (Imam Hasan; http://www.maqasid.wordpress.com) has made a clear on this isuue. Please refer to him response.
Wassalam
We have to follow the salaf, (people of the past referring to the sahaba R, and th three best generations) plain and simple.
,” who WERE NOT following the sunnah. instead he Rahemhullah was a person dedicated to FIGHTING and REFUTING the mubtadi’aa, please dont get confused,
Ibn tayymiyyah did not allow himself to be fooled by people who “want to get closer to Allah
the real People of Bidah, are the ones who KNOW that this is not from the sunnah, and they know it is an innovation to the religion, because everyone has it in their FITRA
1 thing I must ask brother Zaid, why should we muslims in the west act upon Washington Bucker T’s advice. It is deviant and stupid!
Like Fatimah has said, if we use his arguments we could say the same about so many scholars that are blatently on the TRUTH!
You guys dont get caught up by this pacifist SUFI scholar (6)
My Brothers, there is something that you are missing here. In one of my earlier quotes i stated that this afair is not about Imam Zaid or Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah, specifically. Yes they are the ones mentioned at hand due to a question being posed and therefore an answer. But the picture is much bigger in scope and what has happened is that so many people who have mentalities like that the ones you exhibit have become so narrow in their approach and understanding. This is not the place for a lecture or a small booklet on the issue, but please allow me to state the following.
From the time of the Tabi’un until the present day, there have been hundreds of thousands of Scholars, spreading out through the various well known sciences of Islam. From Aqidah to Calligraphy and so on. And although the number of Scholars have dwindled as time past, there never existed an era in which the Ummah was withouth rightly guided Scholars to continue to carry the legacy of this Deen. It is upon you all to study this blessed history and learn about the breadth of this scholastic tradition left by such an array of Scholars and their works and affiliations. This is first! Secondly, learn the well established sciences of the Deen as has been accepted and passed down by the Scholars of the Salaf. This should prove to be extremely helpful, in that many of the things that half educated or completely ignorant people argue against will in fact show itself to be, not only and accepted and established science of the Deen, with many well known and celebrated Scholars at the forefront, but indeed a very popular and desired science by the people of knowledge. Once we cover this ground with sincere intention, many of our issues will fall away like sins after a well performed Wudu.
Now, for the contraversial issue of whether or not Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah had some issues that other rightly guided Scholars of his time took him to account for or whether tasawwuf has a place in the Deen or not… Again these issues are too complex to only give a few lines to in a blog. But it will be interesting to note the irony of the fact that Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah was a Scholar who followed a strict authentic approach of tasaawuf of the Qadiri Tariqah, from the Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jalani. And this is not a secret!!! And if this is the first that you heard of this, then this is our problem with the half education that is taken place in our times.
Finally, we need to get past the idea of “Our” Shaikh is beyond critique or reproach. Imam Malik said it best when he stated that”Every person can be refuted, except this (one, {and he indicated to the grave of the Messenger of Allah
(S)}). So, if Imam Zaid words were with error, then he can be refuted and we ask Allah 
to forgive him for that, and if Ibn Taymiyyah erred in some issues, then he can be refuted and we ask Allah 
to forgive him. But we need to be Muslim enough to accept that and take the best from what these Scholars have to offer us. The ones of today and the ones of the past, and leave aside this partisan mentality against other Muslims. If one wants to blame Imam Zaid for being a “Sufi”, then have a solid basis for doing so, as other rightly guided well known Scholars of the past were people of tasawwuf or a “Sufi”. And if one wants to blame Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah for whatever they blame him for, then they should have a solid basis for such. For he was a Scholar of great esteem, and even in the places where he might have erred, he still gets one reward as the hadith informs us. So people put aside these partisan feelings and emotions and approach the affair in a fair way. Love the people of knowledge and their efforts in this Deen, and if they say or do something other than what we know, then find the basis of it first, before we go off incorrectly blaming them. And always give your Brother Husnul-Thann.
If any wants to challenge my words, then feel free to do so, but I would just ask that you think about them first!!! There is much more that can be said about this and maybe it and can be pit into some small pamphlet oj the issue, but I hope this will suffice for now. And with Allah
is refuge sought!
Ma Salaam
Assalamu ‘alaikum,
“As far as the basic principles that unite Ash’aris, two have primacy. The first is that revelation can be affirmed by intellect, but when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two, revelation has to be given primacy. This is a conclusion substantiated by the Qur’an and Hadith and has provided the basis for the Ash’aris both beating back the intellectual challenge of various sects such as the Mu’tazila, the Isma’ilis and others, while affirming the integrity of divine revelation.”
Sorry, Imam Zaid, Imaam al Ghazali and Imam Ar-Razi both say that when intellect goes against revelation, intellect takes precedence. Brother Yasir Qadhi taught us this directly from their books. Imaam al Ghazali has passages going against the above in Al-Mustasfa. Imaam ar-Razi formulated the “Universal Law”, which went against the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.
a student,
Abdur-Rahman
Imam Zaid Shakir, are you a sufi muslim? I am lost..
Baby name meaning and origin for Zaid…
Description for the baby name Zaid, the origins of the name and its meaning…
@Abdur Rahman
(SWT) reward Imam Ghazali, forgive and overlook his wrong, and accept his repentance.” like Imam Zaid has said, “I pray that Ibn Taymiyya repented from anything that would jeopardize his salvation. May Allah 
(SWT) reward Ibn Taymiyya for his good, forgive and overlook his wrong, and accept his repentance.” If they had it’s good but I havent seen them do it in ANY written articles. (Yasir Qadhi anyways)
1a) Ghazzali DID NOT SAY that intellect takes precedence of revelation. Imam Zaid said the Ashari’s believe intellect AFFIRMS revelation. Ghazzali says that when it seems like the 2 are going against each other it is necessary to make Tawil (which Ashari’s do and Imam Zaid said they do). What you CANNOT do (like other philosophers did) was DENY revelation based on intellect like saying my intellect says such and such so hence this revelation is WRONG (astaghfirallah). 1b)Furthermore Yasir Qadhi did not study Ghazali from people who studied him and believe what he says. To know about Ghazali you need to go to the people who accept him then make your decision about him.. In that case Imam Zaid knows more about Ghazali than Shiekh Qadhi. Similarly I wouldn’t go to Imam Zaid to learn about Ibn tayimiyyah.
2)And For EVERYONE’s information Imam Dhahabi one of Ibn taymiyyah’s student DID disagree and debate with Ibn Tayyimiyyah because Dhabbi believed in the traditional Hanabali fiqh stances in some issues while ibn tayyimiyyah believed in another issue other than hanbali fiqh stance. (which at their level of scholarship they could choose but Imam Zaid is right that Ibn Tayyimiyyah soemtiems did not stand with the Hanbalis. For instance he took the hanafi position on that a father cannot force his daughter to marry.) Furthermore he makes dua for ibn tayyimiyyah. How many of you would do that for Imam Ghazali after ur done refuting him. How many of UR teachers let it be YAsir Qadhi to Al-Albani would say, “I pray that Imam Ghazzali repented from anything that would jeopardize his salvation. May Allah
5)Furthermore the Article is NOT about Ibn Taymiyyah or Ghazzali. Rather it is trying to end the disputes of us commoners and trying to get us commoners to not interfere with scholarly debates so the scholars can end the debate with the best outcome. Meaning if we keep interfering on the side of our scholars it won’t get anything done, we need to step back and let them finish it and then tell us. And the article is to also to have us united to defend against kuffar philosophers of the west..
(I numbered my points so if you reply please put the number ur replying too. Thank u.)
P.S. Abdul Rahman Mirza I beliver ur a SUNY stony brook brother?? if so I met you in ICNA 08 in a yasir qadhi and nouman ali khan lecture. We sat in the front. I wore a black thobe I believe, or a beighe one.