Are the Literal Implications of the Qur’an a Core Aspect of Disbelief According to the Ahl as-Sunnah al-Ash‘ariyyah?
This is a common misconception often spread by Salafis to criticize the scholars of the Ash‘ariyyah. However, their claim merely reflects their own lack of deep engagement with the texts, leading to a flawed understanding and methodological approach to their beliefs and theological principles.
Ash‘ari scholars such as Imām Abū ‘Abdillāh as-Sanūsī and Imām as-Sāwī have stated:
“[Among the causes of disbelief is] the mere application of the literal expressions from the Book and Sunnah in matters of belief, without a detailed [examination] of what is impossible in the literal meaning of the expressions and what is not.” (See al-Muqaddimāt by Imām as-Sanūsī.)
Ironically, many Salafi brothers often truncate the statements of our scholars or present them in a way that does not do justice to their actual wording. As a result, valuable meanings and the author’s intended message in their works are lost. What did the scholars actually say? Did they truly claim that “adhering to the apparent meaning of divine revelation is disbelief,” or did they explain their statements in more detail? And did they only say this, or did they add crucial words that imply something different from what their critics claim?
Imām as-Sanūsī writes in his commentary on al-Muqaddimāt, where he explains the previously mentioned statement:
“As for the sixth [cause of disbelief and innovation], it is adhering to the mere literal meanings in matters of belief from the Book (Qur’an) and the Sunnah, without any insight into what is rationally impossible and what is not. There is no doubt that this is a major cause of disbelief and innovation. As for disbelief, an example of this is what the dualists—who believe in the divinity of light and darkness—did when they interpreted the statement of the Most High: ‘Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth’ to mean that light is one of the two gods and that His name is Allah. All this while they failed to consider the rational impossibility of light being a god, since it undergoes change and is created. It appears and disappears, whereas it is impossible for a god to be subject to change, for eternity and permanence are necessary attributes for Him.”
Imām as-Sanūsī also writes in his explanation of al-‘Aqīdah al-Kubrā:
“For we know with certainty that the Sharī‘ah does not report the occurrence of what is impossible. So if we were to reject rational reason (‘aql) in this context and merely adhere to the literal meaning of a text that implies an impossibility, this would also lead to the destruction of the text itself. Since rational reason is a fundamental prerequisite for establishing prophethood, through which the truthfulness of revelation is recognized, rejecting rational reason leads to rejecting revelation itself.”
From this, it becomes as clear as daylight that Sanūsī is not claiming that the Qur’an itself leads one to disbelief. Rather, it is the action of the person who clings only to the literal meaning without considering what leads to absurd impossibilities—something that both the Ash‘aris and the Salafis deem impossible. This is a cause (asl) of disbelief or innovation.
How could the literal texts constitute both innovation and disbelief when not every innovation is necessarily disbelief? The texts themselves are not structured in a way that inherently produces rational absurdities leading to disbelief and innovations. Instead, it is the individual analyzing and understanding the texts who leads themselves into disbelief by applying a shallow principle that leads them into numerous contradictions on both a rational and religious level.
To continue: This is also due to the contradictions that would arise if a person were to adhere strictly to the literal meanings of all texts.
An example of this is the statements of Allah:
“They have forgotten Allah, so He has forgotten them” (Qur’an 9:67) “Today We forget them just as they forgot the coming of this Day” (Qur’an 7:51).
By holding onto the literal meanings of these verses, a person would be led to assume that Allah forgets—whereas reason (‘aql) strongly negates this. Likewise, the Qur’an itself negates this notion when Allah says: “Allah knows everything” (Qur’an 2:282).
Thus, adhering to the mere literal meaning has led us to two contradictions:
- A contradiction with reason, which affirms that Allah cannot forget.
- A contradiction with the clear theological knowledge that affirms He is All-Knowing.
Whoever denies that He is All-Knowing undoubtedly falls into disbelief, and this is the disbelief that Imām as-Sanūsī is indicating here.
Disbelief does not arise from the placement of words and letters in the Arabic composition of the Qurʾān by Allah, but rather from the erroneous application of the reader who clings to the principle of “adhering to literal meanings.”
Notice how Imām as-Sanūsī said: “adhering to literal meanings” and not “adhering to the Qurʾān and Sunnah,” as some Salafis portray it. This is because the Qurʾān and Sunnah—both their words and their meanings—are not arranged in such a way that they imply literal meanings in all scenarios.
Even Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal explained this approach in some narrations. One such example is found in Masāʾil Imām Aḥmad, recorded by his son ʿAbdullāh:
“I asked my father about a verse that has a general meaning (ʿāmmah). He said: Its explanation is found in the Sunnah, in the ḥadīths. If the verse implies its literal meaning, then look at what has come in the Sunnah regarding it; it serves as evidence for the literal/outer meaning of the verse. For example, the statement of the Most High: yuṣīkum Allāhu fī awlādikum (‘Allah instructs you concerning your children’ [Qurʾān 4:11]). If this verse were taken literally, then everyone called a ‘son’ would inherit. However, since the Sunnah clarified that a Muslim does not inherit from a disbeliever, nor does a disbeliever inherit from a Muslim, nor a murderer, nor a slave, nor a mukātib (a contract-bound slave seeking to purchase his freedom), the Sunnah became the evidence for Allah’s intended meaning in this regard.”
ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad also reports:
“I heard my father say: Whoever does not perform the ṭawāf az-ziyārah, the stoning of the pillars (ramī al-jimār), and all the other necessary acts, his pilgrimage is not complete. For indeed, the statement of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam), ‘Hajj is ʿArafah,’ when considered in light of these actions, is comparable to his statement (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam), ‘Whoever has performed one unit of prayer has performed the prayer.’ If this statement were taken literally, then prayer would be considered complete with just one unit (rakʿah).” Then my father said: “Whoever argues that Hajj is only ʿArafah would, if taking the statement literally, simply stand in ʿArafah, then return to his wife, have marital relations with her, and go hunting [which is prohibited in the state of iḥrām]!”
See Masail Imam Ahmad, narration of Abdullah bin Ahmad, 222, 239.
Conclusion:
If we find a statement from an Ashʿarī scholar in which he explains that the root cause of disbelief lies in adhering to literal meanings in matters of creed (ʿaqīdah) without insight into rational and textual proofs, we understand that this is intended to refute heretics who attempt to manipulate the faith of common Muslims.
They do so by citing verses such as: “They have forgotten Allah, so He has forgotten them” and other similar texts, stripping them from their proper context. This leads to the adoption of a literal meaning, which in turn would result in disbelief if one were to affirm it.
However, when these verses and statements are examined within their proper context, it becomes clear that the literal meaning of the previously decontextualized statement is not the intended meaning for which Allah revealed it.
This is a matter of consensus, as we have just seen from the statements of Imām Aḥmad.
And Allah alone is the Granter of success.
Written by Junaid Kiyani