Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and al-Eemaan - Response to a Faajir Kadhdhaab

[Abu.Iyaad]

Contrasting Between the Irjaa' of the Maturidiyyah, Followers of the Murji'at al-Fuquhaa and the Positions and Statements of Ibn Hajar and Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahumullaah) This is a very crucial point and it helps us to understand the various statements of the Scholars of today in their criticisms and refutations of the Murji'ah and also their comments and remarks upon the Statements of Ibn Hajar and Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahumullaah) The Maturidiyyah, Followers of the Murji'at al-Fuquhaa Who Deny Action (in Principle, in its Genus) is Part of, or From Eemaan First, let us quote Muhammad Zaahid al-Kawtharee, from his comment of his tahqeeq of book by Abu al-Husayn al-Malattee al-Asqalani, "al-Tanbeeh wal-Radd alaa Ahl al-Ahwaa wal-Bida'" (1397H, p. 42): عمل الجوارح من كمال الإيمان لا أنه جزء من ماهية الإيمان لئلا يلزم الانزلاق إلى مذهب المعتزلة أو الخوارج ...the actions of the limbs are from the perfection of eemaan, not that they are a part (juz') from the essence of eemaan, (this) so that sliding towards the madhhab of the Mu'tazilah or the Khawaarij is not necessitated... ِAnd al-Kawtharee also said in his tahqeeq of "al-Farq bayna al-Firaq of al-Baghdadi" (1367H, p. 123): عد العمل ركنا يجر إلى معتقد الخوارج أو المعتزلة ومحققو علماء أصول الدين مع أبي حنيفة في ذلك ... وزعم خلاف ذلك موقع في معتقد الخوارج أو المعتزلة Treating action (amal) as a rukn (pillar in eemaan) leads to the doctrine of the Khawarij or the Mu'tazilah, and the verifiers from the scholars of the foundations of the religion are with Abu Haneefah regarding that... and claiming the opposite of that makes one fall into the doctrine of the Khawarij or the Mu'tazilah And al-Shahrastaani says in his book Nihaayat al-Iqdaam (Cairo, no date, p.474): واعلم أن الإيمان له حقيقة والعمل له حقيقة غير الإيمان وخاطب في كم آية الفاسقين بخطاب المؤمنين يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تفعلوا كذا علم بذلك قطعاً أن الإيمان لو كان هو العمل بعينه أو كان العمل ركناً مقيماً بحقيقة الإيمان لما ميز بهذا التمييز And know that eemaan has a reality and action (amal) has a reality other than eemaan. And (He, Allaah) addressed the sinners in how many verses with the address of the Believers, "O you who believe, do not do such and such...", and it is known through this definitively that had eemaan been action (amal) itself, or had action been a pillar (rukn) that is established with the reality of eemaan, then it would not have been distinguished with this differentiation (i.e. amal distinguished from eemaan) These are some sample quotes and the position of these people (Maturidiyyah, Ahl al-Kalaam) can be summarized as follows: They hold that amal (action) in its genus, in principle, is not and cannot be from the essence, or be a part of eemaan. That if action is treated as a part (juz) or pillar (rukn) of eemaan it necessitates the madhhab of the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah. Upon this, the Ahl al-Kalaam in general have a certain perception towards the view of Ahl al-Sunnah that action is a pillar in eemaan, and a good way to illustrate this is to take a look at what Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606H) says in his book Manaaqib al-Imaam al-Shaafi'ee (1406, tahqeeq al-Saqqaa, p. 146) In this quote al-Razi is outlining the criticism of the Ahl al-Kalam (Ash'aris, including Maturidis) against the position of al-Shafi'i regarding amal (action) being from the musammaa (meaning) of eemaan. So he says: And know that the people (i.e. Ahl al-Kalaam) corroborate a fault (for al-Shafi'ee) from another angle, so they say: It is established in elementary reason (in the minds of people) that the musammaa (meaning, essence) of a thing, when it is made up of numerous things, then when one of those things is lost, the musammaa (meaning, essence) must necessarily be lost. Hence, if action was a part (juz') of eemaan, then with the loss of action it would be obligatory that eemaan no longer remains. However al-Shaafi'ee says, "Action enters into the musammaa of eemaan" but then he says, "Eemaan remains alongside the loss of action" so this is a contradiction. This is an extremely important quote so pay attention to it. Especially the bolded part. Remember, Ahl al-Sunnah say that all the afraad of the outward actions enter into eemaan and are from its reality and are part of it, and thus they do not treat eemaan as a single entity. Hence, the presence and absence of these actions cause the increase and decrease of eemaan. But the Murji'ah (who deny the rukniyyah of amal) cannot understand this, as they only see the view of the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij that if something of action is missing, all of eemaan therefore must be missing because they only see eemaan as in indivisible whole. To the Murji'ah, they say that action (in principle, in its genus) is only a perfection of eemaan, and what they mean here is based upon their position that amal (in its genus, in principle) is not from the essence (musammaa) of eemaan, nor a part of it, and hence it is only from mukammalaat of eemaan. Thus, eemaan itself cannot increase nor decrease. And they held this view upon their mistaken notion that if you enter action as a pillar or part of eemaan, you are forced to enter the creed of the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij, because if something of it goes, the musammaa (essence, meaning) of eemaan can no longer be said to remain or exist, and all of it must go. Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar and Shaykh al-Albaanee intended refutation of the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij and we shall look at them next. Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar and Shaykh al-Albaanee In contrast to these people (the Murji'ah), let us look at what Ibn Hajar outlined and he was followed in this by Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah), and we will see the difference between the two sayings in reality. You can refer to the earlier quotes from Ibn Hajar (through Kandu and his Master's thesis) where Ibn Hajar supports and brings evidence for the view that actions enter into the musammaa of eemaan along with tasdeeq, and he supports the view of the Salaf that eemaan is belief, speech and action and that it increases and decreases. Ibn Hajar explained the difference between the view of the Mut'azilah and that of the Salaf. So he said: فالسلف قالوا: هو اعتقاد بالقلب، ونطق باللسان، وعمل بالأركان.وأرادوا بذلك أن الأعمال شرط في كماله.ومن هنا نشأ ثم القول بالزيادة والنقص كما سيأتي.والمرجئة قالوا: هو اعتقاد ونطق فقط.والكرامية قالوا: هو نطق فقط.والمعتزلة قالوا: هو العمل والنطق والاعتقاد.والفارق بينهم وبين السلف أنهم جعلوا الأعمال شرطا في صحته.والسلف جعلوها شرطا في كماله So the Salaf say: Eemaan is ‘aqeedah in the heart, statement of the tongue and action of the limbs. They mean by this that actions (a'maal) are a condition for its completeness. So from here comes their saying that it increases and decreases — as will follow. The Murji’ah say: ‘It is ‘aqeedah and statement of the tongue only.’ The Karraamiyyah say: ‘It is statement of the tongue only.’ And the Mu’tazilah say: ‘It is action, statement and ‘aqeedah.’ But the difference between the Mu’tazilah and the Salaf is that the Mu’tazilah make actions a condition for the correctness of eemaan, whereas the Salaf make them a condition for its completeness Here Ibn Hajar is speaking of the the afraad (individual) of the a'maal (actions) [whereas the Murji'ah as we have seen from the Maturidiyyah, they are speaking of action in principle, in its genus, and they deny action (amal) is a pillar or a part of eemaan]. Now if we assume the view that abandoning prayer is not major kufr (upon the view of those scholars who hold this), we can say: A person who has tasdeeq and i'tiqaad in his heart, and has expressed with his tongue and is bringing at least something of the actions outwardly (as a validation of the eemaan that is in his heart), if he was to abandon the prayer for example (out of laziness and neglect) it would not invalidate his eemaan (to those who hold this view). Likewise, if he was to abandon any other action (zakah, or fasting, or not stealing or not drinking), it would not invalidate his eemaan. If we were to take each action individually like this, we can say that each action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan (alongside our observation about this terminology, as has preceded), because abandoning these actions (individually) does not invalidate eemaan (unlike what the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij say), but is a sin that necessitates decrease in eemaan. The intent here is to refute the Mu'azilah and the Khawaaarij, and what is more important here is what is intended behind the actual terms being used (shart kamaal, shart sihhah) to point out this difference. This is what Ibn Hajar intends when he says: والمعتزلة قالوا: هو العمل والنطق والاعتقاد.والفارق بينهم وبين السلف أنهم جعلوا الأعمال شرطا في صحته.والسلف جعلوها شرطا في كماله And the Mu’tazilah say: ‘It is action, statement and ‘aqeedah.’ But the difference between the Mu’tazilah and the Salaf is that the Mu’tazilah make actions a condition for the correctness of eemaan, whereas the Salaf make them a condition for its completeness As has preceded, the criticism upon this is that he has made a generalization which is not accurate or correct. The Mu'tazilah do not say all actions are a condition for the validity of eemaan, just those whose abandonment is a major sin, and likewise the Salaf do not say the abandonment of all actions amounts only to major sin, rather amongst them are those who hold abandonment of prayer to invalidate eemaan, hence it becomes shart sihhah (upon this terminology which is used by al-Shibal, al-Barraak, Ibn al-Uthaymeen and others - refer to quotes above). This is very different to what the Maturidiyyah, followers of the Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa say, in that action cannot be from eemaan, otherwise it necessitates the madhhab of the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij, and hence, when these Maturidiyyah write in their books, statements like: عمل الجوارح من كمال الإيمان لا أنه جزء من ماهية الإيمان لئلا يلزم الانزلاق إلى مذهب المعتزلة أو الخوارج ... the action of the limbs is from the perfection of eemaan but not a juz (part) of eemaan... As is said by al-Kawtharee as quoted earlier, then these are the ones who are intended in the refutation of the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah who say that the one who says action (amal) as in its genus, in principle, is only a condition for the perfection of eemaan, or is only from the perfection of eemaan, (and is not a rukn or juz'), is from the Murji'ah. As for the one who says frorm Ahl al-Sunnah, upon the view that abandoning prayer is not major kufr, that the a'maal (as in the afraad, individual actions on their own) are a condition for the perfection, or that some of them are a condition for the perfection (for those who the treat the prayer as shart sihhah), whilst amal (in its genus) is a rukn and juz' of eemaan and enters into the musammaa of eemaan (which is affirmed by both Ibn Hajar and al-Albani), then they are not from the Murji'ah even if some of the Scholars make observations on the terms and phrases they used. The issue then becomes one of what did they intend by these statements and phrases (which have ambiguity) - and so it becomes similar to terms "jism" and "hayyiz", and "makaan", in that we investigate what a person means, corroborate the true meaning and avoid the usage of the ambiguous phrases. Remarks of the Scholars Upon the Statement of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (and Shaykh al-Albani) From the above, (when we look at what the Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa say and what Ibn Hajar and al-Albani said), there is a degree of ambiguity in the statement of Ibn Hajar (and likewise al-Albani), even if they intend something different to what the Murij'ah intend. For Ibn Hajar and al-Albani intend refutation of the Mu'tazilah from the angle of the afraad (individual) of the actions, whilst affirming the rukniyyah and juz'iyyah of action in its genus, with respect to eemaan (and that it increases and decreases). The error is in the generalization, as I acknowledged and affirmed in the very first post in this thread. Whereas when we look at the likes of al-Kawtharee and others who represent the Maturidiyyah, Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa, they oppose the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij by denying the very rukniyyah and juz'iyyah of actions with respect to eemaan (being a pillar or part of eemaan), and treat action in its genus, as only a completion of eemaan (as in something additional to eemaan, that completes it) and not from eemaan itself (and thus eemaan itself, in its essence, does not increase or decrease). When we understand the above, we will understand more clearly the criticisms and refutations of our Scholars of the Sunnah against the Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa and also their remarks upon the statement of Ibn Hajar (and likewise al-Albaani).