A Muslim(Salafi-Sunni-Athari), Yoruba
Joined August 2014
- Tweets40K
- Following1.1K
- Followers1.8K
- Likes78.8K
Pinned Tweet
To learn Arabic yourself, start with:
1. Arabiya Bayna Yadayk 1
2. Madinah Arabic 1
3. Arabiya Bayna Yadayk 2
4. Madinah Arabic 2
5. Madinah Arabic 3
6. Arabiya Bayna Yadayk 3
7. Madinah Arabic 4
8. Arabiya Bayna Yadayk 4
If I had to start again, I'd follow this accordingly.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
That's because he never did "confirm" Jesus and not one Christian author cites Jospehus' passage until the 4th century AD, including Origen, who said he "CAN'T BELIEVE JOSPEHUS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT JESUS" around 220 AD.
It was forged by later Christians like Eusebius.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Some sincere advice to myself and my brothers and sisters:
When engaging in debates with people from other sects or religions online, I have witnessed some truly abhorrent and repulsive arguments being made, statements that should make the stomach of every believer churn upon hearing them.
My advice, first and foremost to myself, is that before making such arguments, sincerely ask yourself:
Would I be comfortable standing before Allah (ﷻ) on the Day of Judgement, repeating these very words and attempting to justify why I uttered them?
Would I be content to have these statements recorded among my deeds?
Not every argument that silences an opponent is an argument that pleases Allah (ﷻ).
Winning an argument is worthless if, in doing so, we incur the displeasure of Allah (ﷻ).
May Allah (ﷻ) forgive us for our shortcomings, purify our intentions, guard our tongues, and grant us sincerity and wisdom when speaking about His religion. Amin.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
The Destroyer of Paganism, Imam Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhab al-Hanbali, said:
❝As for our madhhab, it is the madhhab of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah. We do not object to those who follow the four schools of jurisprudence, provided that they do not contradict an explicit text from the Book and the Sunnah, the consensus of the Ummah, or the position of the majority.
What is intended is to clarify the religion upon which we stand: that we worship Allah alone, without associating any partners with Him in worship, by abandoning all forms of shirk and by following the Messenger ﷺ in doing so. We also renounce all innovations.❞
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
This is the fundamental problem with Christianity.
For Christians, God has a rival, Satan.
Whereas in Islām there is no equal to God, Satan is a rival to man.
Two different categories altogether.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
What actually happened in the Borno High Court judgment involving Lami Samuel Dawa is very different from the narrative Arise TV and some of its anti-Sharia propagandists have been pushing.
I shared the certified true copy of the judgment so people can read it themselves. The victim was a 16-year-old minor. The court found, on the evidence (including the first defendant’s own admissions), that she enticed the girl away from her parents’ custody, removed her, took her to Jos, and facilitated her discontinuation from school and placement in a Bible school; all without the parents’ knowledge or consent. In fact, it is in evidence that the convict gave a phone and sim to the minor and when she realized that her parents were already looking for her, she asked her to stop at Bauchi instead of Jos. Why not ask her to come back to Borno? Who gave her money to travel? Her parents? The convict? If this is not abduction, I wonder what this one is. The above is what the conviction rests on. The other defendants were discharged for lack of credible evidence. Sentences of 14, 14 and 10 years were ordered to run concurrently.
As I explained earlier, this case has no root in Shariah. It was tried in the High Court of Borno State under the Penal Code Laws of Borno State 2023 and the Borno State Child Protection Law 2021, ordinary state laws on child abduction, removal from lawful custody, and related offences. No Shariah Court had jurisdiction over it. No non-Muslim was tried under Shariah. The charges and the reasoning come from the same child-protection framework that exists under the Child Rights Act and similar laws across Nigeria, not from Islamic law. Yet some people rushed to attack Islam and Shariah as if this were a Shariah matter.
Sharing the actual judgment has already put the sensational version to shame. Anyone can now see the charges, the evidence, the findings, and the reasoning. It is no longer possible to reduce this to “a Christian woman was jailed for simply sharing her faith with an adult who converted willingly,” or to claim it was a Shariah trial. It is also important to state that the convict has right of appeal even upto the Supreme Court. So the matter is not completely closed.
This is why verification matters before anything is shared publicly. Imagine if the certified judgment had not been in circulation. The false narrative would have continued unchallenged, further inflaming an already sensitive environment. The danger of such false narratives to our peace and to the integrity of the legal system is enormous.
People should not jump on trends without the facts.
Media houses have a responsibility to report accurately, especially on matters that touch religion, child protection, and court decisions. When they fail, the cost is paid by ordinary Nigerians who want peace and a functioning justice system.
Enough of the propaganda.
Enough of the anti-Shariah narratives.
Why are you jittery at the thought of prostitution (which exploits women and little girls) being banned?
Niggas supporting abduction of minors to convert them to Christianity, yet they supported the arrest and prosecution of Yunusa who did the same thing to Ese Oruru.
He abducted her and took her to kano where she converted to Islam.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Here are the facts regarding the deliberate sensationalism pushed by Arise News and online propagandists.
1) The judgment was delivered by Hon. Justice A. B. Kumalia at the Borno State High Court in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CR/154/2025 on May 5, 2026.
2) Liyatu Samuel Dawa was convicted under Section 210 of the Borno State Penal Code strictly for "depriving a parent the lawful custody of his child."
3) The victim is a MINOR, not an adult contrary to what is being peddled around.
4) The court established the victim was a minor who was lured away from her parents and removed from school, completely destroying the "consenting adult woman" media lie.
5) In the Allocutus admission, as seen in the Certified True Copy attached, Dawa herself pleaded for leniency by explicitly referring to the minor as a "victim" whom she "did not intend to cheat" and "only advised."
6) The Irrelevance of Consent as a defense. Even if the minor allegedly "confessed" or agreed to the conversion, a child cannot legally consent to abduction away from her lawful guardians.
The deceitful attempt by Arise to replace a vulnerable minor with an independent adult is a calculated media strategy to transform a straightforward child abduction conviction into a fabricated story of religious persecution.
We rely on the Certified True Copy of the court judgment, not manufactured internet outrage.
Let’s stick to the facts.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
The recent discussions about DCT reminded me of this verse.
The Jinn seemingly know what ‘good’ is and assume that God would do it, and they know what ‘evil’ is and assume God wouldn’t do it.
The Quran is intentionally careful, theologically.
The scholars (like Ibn Taymiyyah) mention that absolute, unqualified evil is never attributed to Allah. One of the examples that they use is Q 72:10. When the Jinn talk about “evil” being intended for those on earth, the doer (فاعل) of this potential evil is omitted and remains unspecified. But when the Jinn talk about “what is right” being intended for those on earth, they refer to Allah as the doer.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
The problem with those who deny the apparent meanings of the attributes is that they are mentioned repeatedly throughout the revelation, with the various texts corroborating the same apparent meaning.
Imam Ahmad said:
❝Whoever claims that His Hand means His blessings, what will he do with His statement: {What I created with My two Hands} (38:75), with a Shaddah? (Which is used only for the two hands belonging to one's own essence)
And ‘when He created Adam, He gathered and seized [a handful]’, meaning: from the entirety of the earth.
And ‘the hearts are between two fingers.’❞
Imam Abū ʿAbdullāh al-Zubayri al-Shāfiʿi (d. 318 AH), in the chapter “The Refutation of Those Who Denied the Hand”, commented on Quran 38:75, saying:
❝...If it were as the Jahmiyyah claim, that it means the hand of niʿmah (blessing), then it would have been one hand. But in the speech of the Arabs, the form yadayya (my two hands) is used only for the two hands belonging to one's own essence❞
#ClassicalPureShafiiyyah
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Ibn Qudāmah's main issue with Abū Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī was was the doctrine of kalām nafsī, not his personal affairs.
Ibn Qudāmah did, however, state that Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī was "A man who was not known for religion, piety, or any knowledge of the religious sciences whatsoever. Nor was he associated with any knowledge apart from the blameworthy science of ʿilm al kalām". (al Munazarah fi al Qur'an, Ibn Qudamah, p. 51)
Haroun Kanj believes that Ibn Qudāmah was influenced by Sijzī and others to hate Abū Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, but he agrees with al-Ashʿarī on kalām Allah, but also writes extensive refutations against kalām nafsī?? You see how incoherent this claim is...??
He then says all of the following statements in his tweet are in agreement with the Ashʿarī school, now lets see if this is true.
The first is of Ibn Qudāmah saying Allah's speech is eternal.
Ibn Qudāmah (d. 620 AH) said [slightly abridged translation]: Among the attributes of Allah, the Most High, is that He speaks with eternal speech, which He permits whomever He wills from His creation to hear directly from Him.
Musa عليه السلام heard His speech directly from Him, without any intermediary, as did those among His angels and messengers whom He granted permission to hear it. Furthermore, Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, will speak to the believers in the Hereafter, and they will speak to Him. He will also grant them permission to visit Him.
Allah, the Most High, says, "And Allah spoke directly to Musa." (al Nisa 164).
He also uses al A'raf 144; al Baqarah 253; al Shura 51; Ta Ha 11–12, 14 as proofs.
He then said: It is not permissible for anyone other than Allah to make such a statement.
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (d. 32 AH), may Allah be pleased with him, said, "When Allah speaks with revelation, the inhabitants of heaven hear His voice, resembling the sound of a chain being dragged across a smooth stone." (al Sunnah, Abdullah ibn Ahmad 536). A narration concerning this has also been reported from the Prophet ﷺ. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4738).
Abdullah ibn Unays (d. 54 AH), may Allah be pleased with him, narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said, "Allah will gather all creation on the Day of Resurrection, barefoot, naked, uncircumcised, and possessing nothing. He will then call out to them with a voice that those who are far away will hear just as clearly as those who are near: 'I am the King. I am the Judge who gives everyone their due.'" (Musnad Ahmad 16042). This hadith was narrated by the leading scholars of hadith, and al Bukhari (d. 256 AH) also mentioned it as supporting evidence.
[Shortened translation]: The Prophet ﷺ stated that Allah will call out to all creation on the Day of Resurrection with a voice heard equally by those near and far. (Musnad Ahmad, 16042).
It is also reported that Musa عليه السلام heard Allah's voice and asked whether Allah was speaking directly or through a messenger. Allah replied, "Rather, it is My speech, O Musa."
Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Nāṣir al-Barrāk said: Regarding the Ibn Qudāmah's statement, "Among the attributes of Allah, the Most High, is that He speaks with eternal speech," it appears from his wording, may Allah have mercy upon him, that he inclines towards the position of the Salimiyyah.
Side Note: Haroun Kanj claimed to agree with Ibn Qudāmah here, but when the context is taken into account, we see that his view was that Allah's words and letters are eternal, not that it is an eternal "speech" without words or letters as they claim.
The Salimiyyah say that Allah's speech consists of letters and sounds, but that these letters and sounds are eternal. According to their position, Allah's speech is not connected to His will. Rather, His will is connected only to making His speech heard by whomever He wills.
According to their understanding, Allah causes whomever He wills to hear His eternal speech. So what Musa عليه السلام heard was the eternal speech of Allah, which, according to their claim, subsists in His Essence. They consider His speech to be like His life, hearing, and sight, which are attributes that subsist in His Essence. Therefore, according to them, Allah has always been described as possessing this very speech, which has eternally subsisted in Him.
However, the correct position, which is established by both reason and the revealed texts, is that Allah's speech is eternal in its kind (Qadim al Naw'), while its individual instances occur at particular times.
This means that Allah has always spoken whatever He wills, whenever He wills, and however He wills. As for the individual instances of His speech, they occur at their appointed times, in accordance with His will. (Irshad al ʿIbad ila Maʿani Lumʿat al Iʿtiqad, Shaykh al Barrak, pp. 49–51)
Haroun Kanj then quotes Ibn Qudāmah saying: "Agreement in the fundamental reality of an attribute does not constitute anthropomorphism."
But leaves out the part where Ibn Qudāmah is refuting kalām nafsī.
Ibn Qudamah says in full: "As for their claim that the speech of Allah, the Most High, must not consist of letters lest it resemble the speech of humans, we reply to this in several ways. (al Baqillani makes this exact argument in al Insaf)
First: Agreement in the fundamental reality of something does not constitute tashbīh. Just as agreement concerning sight in the perception of visible things, hearing in the perception of audible things, and knowledge in the perception of things known does not constitute tashbīh, the same applies here.
Second: If this were considered tashbīh, then their own tashbīh would be even more objectionable and more severe, as we have already explained (that the Ashʿarī understanding of kalām nafsī can also be likened to fikr (thinking), tarawwī (deliberation), and hadīth al nafs)" (Al Sirat al Mustaqim fi Ithbat al Harf al Qadim, by Ibn Qudamah, p. 43)
When Haroun Kanj mentions that the difference between the Hanbalis and the Ashʿarīs is semantical, he again conveniently leaves out where Ibn Qudamah refutes them. All the quotes Haroun Kanj has brought, in context refute kalām nafsī...
Ibn Qudamah says [slightly abridged]: "We agree that Mūsā عليه السلام heard the speech of Allāh directly from Allāh Himself, not from a tree, a stone, or anything else.
If he had heard it from someone other than Allāh, the Children of Israel would have been superior to him in this respect, since they heard from Mūsā, who would have been greater than the one from whom Mūsā himself heard. Why, then, would Mūsā have been called kalīm al Raḥmān (the one to whom the Most Merciful spoke)?
Once this has been established, the speech that Mūsā عليه السلام heard could only have consisted of ṣawt (voice) and ḥarf (letters). For if it had merely been an internal meaning, a thought, or a reflection, it would not have constituted Allāh speaking to Mūsā, nor would Mūsā have heard it, since thought does not extend beyond the mind, nor could it have been described as a calling.
If they say, 'We do not call it a voice, even though it is heard,' we reply in several ways.
First: This is merely a disagreement in wording while agreeing in meaning, for by ṣawt (voice), we mean nothing other than that which is heard.
Second: The word ṣawt (voice) has been mentioned in the narrations and reports! (al Ṣirāṭ al Mustaqīm fī Ithbāt al Ḥarf al Qadīm, Ibn Qudāmah, 46–47)
Conclusion
Simply put Haroun Kanj has taken Ibn Qudāmah's statements out of context to make them appear consistent with the Ashʿarī position.
First, Ibn Qudāmah affirms that Allah's speech is eternal, and he erred in this issue since his view was in alignment with the Salimiyyah, but he also explicitly affirms that it consists of letters and sounds. This contradicts the Ashʿarī doctrine of kalām nafsī.
Second, Ibn Qudāmah argues that sharing a fundamental meaning does not constitute tashbīh. He uses this argument specifically to refute the Ashʿarī objection that affirming letters in Allah's speech would make it resemble human speech.
Third, Ibn Qudāmah only describes the disagreement concerning ṣawt (voice) as verbal when both of us agree on what is actually heard, but he leaves out where Ibn Qudāmah argues that Mūsā عليه السلام heard Allah's speech consisting of letters and sounds, which again contradicts the belief of kalām nafsī
The very statements Haroun Kanj presents as evidence of agreement with the Ashʿarīs "in some principles" are actually part of Ibn Qudāmah's refutation of them. Reading his statements in context makes this clear.
Not only that but he ignored the proofs of Allah having a voice, and still decides to take the view that a voice cannot be attributed to Allah.
The Ashʿarīs do not care about the Qur'an and Sunnah, they would rather blindly follow their scholars on views that clearly go against the nusus.
Was Ibn Qudama a secret Ash'ari?
Sure seems like it (in some of his principles). Here are some of his statements from one of his works known as: al-Ṣirāt al-Mustaqīm fee Ithbāt al-Harf al-Qadīm.
Before the Wahhabis come on here and start to bark with statements from the Imam disparaging Imam Ash'ari, I'm well aware of such statements. These statements have no weight or truth behind them. May Allah forgive Ibn Qudama for his slander of Imam Ash'ari. He wasn't the first, nor the last. Unfortunately, he was affected by the false propaganda of Sijzi and others. What's important is the Imam's statements in aqeeda, not what he unjustly said about other imams. All of the following statements are in agreement with the Ash'ari school.
_
1●"The speech of Allah is eternal."
(Here, the Imam is stating that the speech of Allah has no beginning or end. It is atemporal. The Ash'aris agree.)
_
2●"Agreement in the fundamental reality of an attribute does not constitute anthropomorphism, just as the correspondence of [the attribute of] sight [between God and the creation] in being the perception of visible things, [the attribute of] hearing in being the perception of audible things, and [the attribute of] knowledge in being the perception of things known does not constitute anthropomorphism."
(The imam here is saying that just a you, O Ash'aris, have affirmed Sight, Hearing and knowledge for God, even though the creation is ascribed with such attributes, does not constitute Tashbeeh, because its different in its reality. The only shared meaning between the two [i.e., God's attributes & the creation's attributes] is the fact that there's perception taking place. Btw, the Ash'aris have no issue with this point.)
_
3●"If they (i.e., the Ash'arīs) say: “We do not call it a voice, despite the fact that it is heard,” we would say: There are several answers. The first is that this is a disagreement in wording while agreeing in meaning, for by voice we mean nothing other than that which is heard."
(Here, the imam is stating that what the Hanbalis mean by God possessing a voice is that his speech is heard. He states that the difference between the Hanbalis and Ash'aris on this point is semantic because the Ash'aris also agree that the Speech of Allah is heard. The Ash'aris simply have an issue with ascribing a voice to God. The Hanbalis ascribed a voice to God because the word voice [ṣawt] has come in some narrations. The Ash'aris did not affirm ṣawt for God because it is not mentioned in the Quran or Mutawātir Sunnah, and the āhād ahadith that mention ṣawt are open to interpretation [i.e., not definitive].)
والله أعلم بالصواب.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
IZALA is one of the problems you mentioned? You clearly saw a dimwit from the TIJJANIYYA sect openly attack an IZALA Imam in sokoto. You also saw those foolish TIJJANIYYA followers in Kano openly threaten to kill Sheikh Lawal Triumph. And you clearly saw the celebrations by some TIJJANIYYA followers following the death of Dr. Idris Dutsen Tanshi. Yet, you still have the audacity to blame IZALA?
IZALA lost two prominent scholars years ago, but they didn't go around blaming other sects for their deaths. Are you so dumb that you can't even remember that?
Haka za ku mutu da haushin IZALA, wallahi, yadda kakanninku suka mutu da shi. Munafukan banza, munafukan wofi. Mushrikan banza kawai!
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Can @HarounKanj use the little IQ he has to explain to us why al-Bāqillāni, in responding to the belief that Allah is everywhere, said that Allah is in fact on the Throne and cited verses about good words ascending to Allah ﷻ in the upward direction? (He can’t.)
At this stage of Ash‘arism, its Imams used the arguments of Ahl al-Sunnah primarily to appease them. Their later Imams labelled anyone who used such arguments a “Mujassim.”
They have nothing on him, so to save face, they're claiming he deleted his tweets. He travelled to UK months ago, y'all couldn't collate all the tweets before then?😹
You lost but you still looking for a way to claim victory 😹
Some Nigerian Christians think that because they're Christians, they can call the shots in the UK 😹
@ukhomeoffice @andyburnham
No one with Jihadi tendency and a known supporter of extreme Islam should be allowed into Britain. This guy is one of the worst in Nigeria. Now he is in England. He has deleted his tweets. Do not say you were not warned. @DailyMail @BBC
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
The Ashʿarī Position on Good and Evil and the Belief of the Majority of Ahl al Sunnah
The Ashʿarī Position on al Taḥsīn wa al Taqbīḥ
The issue of al taḥsīn wa al taqbīḥ (determining goodness and evil) concerns whether actions contain qualities that make them good or evil, and whether Allah's commands and prohibitions are connected to wisdom and benefit.
The Ashʿarīs deny that actions possess qualities which make them good or evil in themselves, or which provide reasons for Allah's commands. Rather, Allah may command one action instead of another through His will alone, without any wisdom or consideration of benefit in His creation and commands.
According to this position, Allah could command shirk and prohibit worshipping Him alone. He could command injustice and immoral acts while prohibiting righteousness and taqwā.
Goodness and evil are therefore understood through the command and prohibition alone. Nothing is considered maʿrūf (good) or munkar (evil) in itself, apart from what agrees with or opposes human inclinations. This also means that Allah's love of goodness and hatred of evil are not affirmed on the basis of qualities found within actions. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, 8/433)
The Refutation of the Ashʿarī Position
This position is contrary to the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the understanding of the Salaf, and sound reason!!
Allah says: "Indeed, Allah does not command immorality." (al Aʿrāf 28)
This makes clear that immorality is not something Allah commands. The Qur'an also distinguishes between good and evil, rather than treating them as actions with no meaningful difference between them.
Allah says: "Should those who commit evil deeds think that they will be made equal to those who believe and do righteous deeds?" (al Jāthiyah 21)
Allah also says: "Then should We treat the Muslims like the criminals? What is the matter with you? How do you judge?" (al Qalam 35–36)
And Allah says: "Or should We treat those who believe and do righteous deeds like those who spread corruption on earth? Or should We treat the righteous like the wicked?" (Ṣād 28)
These verses show that there is a real difference between righteousness and corruption, and between those who perform good deeds and those who commit evil.
The claim that Allah's commands have no connection to wisdom or benefit is contrary to the Qur'an and Sunnah. Allah knows what is beneficial for His servants and what is harmful to them.
The Qur'an describes the Messenger ﷺ as commanding good, prohibiting al munkar (evil), making al ṭayyibāt (good things) lawful, and prohibiting al khabāʾith (harmful and evil things). (al Aʿrāf 157)
The commands are therefore not without wisdom, nor are good and evil reduced to what people happen to find agreeable or disagreeable.
The rejection of wisdom would also leave no sound basis for distinguishing between those deserving preference and those who are not.
But Allah says: "Allah knows best where to place His message." (al Anʿām 124)
Allah's commands, prohibitions, and choices are connected to His knowledge and wisdom. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, 8/433–434)
The Belief of the Majority of Ahl al Sunnah
The majority of Ahl al Sunnah affirmed that Allah commands what is good and prohibits what is evil, and that His rulings contain wisdom and benefit.
An action may possess a quality of goodness or evil before revelation addresses it. In other cases, the action acquires that quality through Allah's command or prohibition.
This means that the ruling and the quality found within the action must be distinguished. Allah may make something obligatory or prohibited through revelation, while certain qualities of benefit or harm may already be present in the action.
There are three categories of actions which make this matter clear.
The First Category: Actions That Contain Goodness or Evil in Themselves
An action may contain maṣlaḥah (benefit) or mafsadah (harm) even before revelation addresses it.
For example, justice benefits people, whereas injustice causes harm and corruption. Reason can recognise these qualities.
However, recognising an action as evil does not mean that a person deserves punishment in the Hereafter before receiving the message of a Messenger.
Allah says: "And We would not punish until We had sent a messenger." (al Isrāʾ 15)
The Qur'an also explains that Messengers were sent to bring glad tidings and warnings, so that people would have no argument against Allah after the Messengers. (al Nisāʾ 165)
This refutes the extreme proponents of rational goodness and evil who believed that people could be punished for their evil actions even without a Messenger being sent to them.
The purpose of sending Messengers is also mentioned in al Qaṣaṣ 59 and al Mulk 8–10.
The same principle is supported by the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim concerning Allah's acceptance of excuses and His sending of Messengers as bearers of glad tidings and warnings. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, 8/434–435)
The Second Category: Actions That Become Good or Evil Through Revelation
An action may acquire goodness when Allah commands it, or evil when Allah prohibits it.
In such cases, the action receives this quality through the command or prohibition itself.
This is a category that the Muʿtazilah failed to recognise, because their understanding restricted goodness and evil to qualities belonging to actions independently of revelation. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, 8/435–436)
Side Note: The Karrāmiyyah, Rāfiḍah and Zaydiyyah also agreed to the Muʿtazilah view.
The Third Category: Commands Given to Test Obedience
Allah may command something to test whether His servant will obey or disobey, without intending that the commanded action itself be completed.
For example, Allah commanded Ibrāhīm عليه السلام to sacrifice his son. When both submitted to the command, the purpose of the test was fulfilled, and the sacrifice itself was not required to take place.
Allah says: "So when they had both submitted, and he put him down upon his forehead." (al Ṣāffāt 103)
The hadith concerning the leper, the bald man, and the blind man also illustrates this matter. Allah tested them through the blessings given to them.
The blind man was told: "Keep your wealth, for you have been tested. Allah is pleased with you and displeased with your companion." (Ṣaḥīḥ al Bukhārī 3464; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2964)
In these examples, the wisdom concerns the command and the test of obedience, rather than the completion of the action itself.
The Ashʿarīs treated the entire Sharia as belonging to this category of testing and denied that actions possess goodness or evil before or through revelation.
The majority of Ahl al Sunnah affirmed all three categories, and this is the correct position. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, 8/436)
Conclusion
The Ashʿarīs deny that actions contain qualities which provide reasons for Allah's commands and prohibitions, while the Muʿtazilah failed to recognise that some actions acquire goodness or evil through revelation or are commanded as tests.
The majority of Ahl al Sunnah affirmed all three categories: actions that contain benefit or harm in themselves, actions that acquire goodness or evil through revelation, and commands intended to test obedience.
Majmūʿ Fatāwā Shaykh al Islām Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah, 8/433–436
For a much more detailed refutation of their view indirectly, and any other heretical views on this issue, see this article which is a long excerpt from the book, Miftāḥ Dār al Saʿādah by Ibn Al Qayyim – athari-archive.com/2026/10/2…
Ebira niggas, wetin dey sup gan gan? Practically all the ISWAP and Ansaru in the South are Ebiras
