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

[Abu.Iyaad]

I was sent something by email that was posted by Musa Millington on this matter and his speech focused around the usage of the term "shart" (condition). It is clear to me that he has not grasped this matter well or the purpose and intent of the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah in using these phrases (shart al-kamaal, shart al-sihhah) and the true nature of the criticism against the speech of Ibn Hajar (and likewise against the Murji'at al-Fuquhaa). Before I address these matters, first of all Musa Millington misunderstood POINT 4 in my first post, here is his quote of it (emphasis is as quoted by Musa): POINT 4: In the quote which I included from Ibn Hajar in the chapter there is an itlaaq (generalisation, absolution) in his explanation of the difference between the saying of the Salaf and the saying of the Mu'tazilah which is incorrect. So whilst Ibn Hajar correctly characterized the view of the Salaf that eemaan in the shari'ah is i'tiqaad, qawl and 'amal, he erred by implying that all action to the Mu'tazilah is shart sihhah and all action to the Salaf is shart kamaal. This is an error because from the actions are those which are mustahabb and waajib whose omission would not invalidate eemaan, thus, they cannot be considered to be shart sihhah (upon the understanding that these terms (shart kamaal, shart sihhah) are employed by some of the Scholars to speak of individual actions, whereas others say these terms are not to be used or employed). Likewise, the Mu'tazilah do not hold that all action is shart sihhah, rather it is only that which is a kabeerah (major sin) which they hold to be shart sihhah. Hence, the generalization made by Ibn Hajar is incorrect. Whilst this is a valid observation, this particular discussion has no connection to the aqidah of the Ash'ariyyah because the Ash'aris do not hold actions are from Eemaan in the first place, and hence, the discussion of action being shart kamaal or shart sihhah is irrelevant. Upon this, the accusation that I propagated the aqidah of the Ash'aris cannot be founded on this observation since the position of the Ash'aris is that eemaan is tasdeeq lughatan (linguistically) and shar'an (legislatively) and actions are not from eemaan at all. Musa Millington remarked: Actually it is relevant. Now, before we go into this, just to clarify my studies in this issue, we had to study and read Kitaab Ul Imaan by Ibn Taymeeyah in my first semester of Shar'eeyah in Madeenah (2002). And this topic is indeed a serious and deep topic which no one should enter into unless he has studied it comprehensively. Now the statement that the particular discussion about Shart Ul Kamaal or Sihhah is irrelevant is an incorrect statement to make. Actually it is extremely relevant to this topic. The discussion of shart al-kamaal and shart al-sihhah is in fact irrelevant to the discussion of the position of the Ash'aris (who say eemaan is pure tasdeeq alone and actions do not enter into it at all) and that is what I am saying in the above paragraph as is very clear from the entire sentence. This particular issue cannot be used to make the accusation that I propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aris as this issue is irrelevant to the position of the Ash'aris (to whom actions are not from eemaan at all). This is in addition to the other point that Ibn Hajar gave both a linguistic and legislative definition of eemaan, that to the Salaf (legislatively), it is belief, speech and action, and likewise, his indication that it increases and decreases in opposition to what most of the groups of kalaam are upon (which includes the Ash'aris). On all these counts, there is nothing that justifies the faajir kadhdhaab's slander that I "propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aris" and the fact that he made this accusation shows his jahl. The entirety of my first post was focused around this particular slander. With this cleared up, it now leaves us with the usage of the terms shart al-kamaal and shart al-sihhah. Let me quote the rest of Musa Millington's post: Because the belief that Imaan is Shart Ul Kamaal is the belief of the Murji'ah Al Fuqaha who believe that Imaan is statement and belief and that actions are a condition of completeness of Imaan. {Read the explanation of Waasiteeyah by Shaikh Khaleel Harraas}. If one says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan then in that case he is putting actions outside of Imaan. The difference between the Irjaa of the 'Asharis and the Irjaa of the Fuqaha is that the Murjiah Al Fuqaha do not go to the extreme with the statement that sins do not affect Imaan. Hence, by not clarifying the statement of Ibn Hajar, although he put the speech of Imam Al Baghawi afterward which clarifies the belief of the Salaf, a person could have been misled into 'Irjaa without doubt since the average reader may deduct that actions is from Imaan however it is a condition which is in fact an oxymoron i.e a statement where there are two opposites. To explain this more clearly we all know that Wuduu is one of the conditions of prayer. If there is no Wuduu there is no prayer. However, the Wuduu itself is not part of the prayer but rather a pre-requisite that must be established before the prayer is done hence outside of it. Likewise, the one who says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan is like the one that says that actions are a pre-requisite for its completeness but not part of it. There are numerous points on this, and the fact that this was the most Musa could say on the matter shows that he should not really be speaking about it at all: POINT 1: First of all, I am extremely surprised that Musa Millington should even go here. It looks like he did not read the quote I included within POINT 4 itself. Before I come to that quote, let me give some background that will help to put a context to things: The terms shart al-kamaal and shart al-sihhah are terms that were originally used to help differentiate between the saying of the Mu'tazilah and the saying of the Salaf. Ibn Hajar appears the first to use it. Ibn Hajar holds that the one who abandons the prayer is not a disbeliever (and that abondonment of prayer is major sin), upon this, in his view, all of the individual actions - from the point of view of differentiating from the position of the Mu'tazilah Wa'eediyyah - are from the completion of eemaan (alongside being from eemaan itself), and thus Ibn Hajar used these phrases (shart kamaal, shart sihhah). The criticism of the scholars against him was that he made an itlaaq (generalization) and implied that all actions to the Mu'tazilah are shart sihhah (condition for validity) and all actions to the Salaf are shart kamaal (condition for perfection). This is incorrect because the Mu'tazilah only treat those actions as shart sihhah whose abandonment is a major sin, and likewise from Ahl al-Sunnah are those who hold abandonment of prayer is kufr, hence, to them the prayer would be shart sihhah (upon this terminology employed to differentiate between the position of the Mu'tazilah and the position of Ahl al-Sunnah). The issue here is not so much the terminology of "shart kamaal" and "shart al-sihhah" as much as it is the intent behind the person using these phrases and the underlying usool he is operating from in the subject of eemaan. Not taking care here will lead a person to enter the snares of the Haddaadiyyah and Takfiriyyah who accuse Shaykh al-Albaannee with al-Irjaa. [And it's no surprise that the faajir kadhdhaab we are speaking of appears to be relying on some of the sites of the Haddaadis and Takfiris in order to attack the Salafi callers]. [Note: see posts further below quoting from Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul and Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel who speaks on this matter]. With this laid down, let's go back to the quote I brought in my POINT 4 in the first post in this thread: The author of al-Tanbeeh 'alaa al-Mukhaalafaat al-Aqadiyyah Fil-Fath al-Baaree (Dar al-Watan, 1422, p. 28) writes, commenting on Ibn Hajar's differentiation between the saying of the Salaf and that of the Mu'tazilah (and this book has taqreedh by the following Shaykhs, Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz, Salih al-Fawzan, Abdullah al-Aqil and Abdullah bin Manee'): الصواب أن الأعمال عند السلف الصالح: قد تكون شرطاً في صحة الإيمان، أي أنها من حقيقة الإيمان قد ينتفي الإيمان بانتفائها، كالصلاة. وقد تكون شرطاً في كماله الواجب فينقص الإيمان بانتفائها كبقية الأعمال التي تركها فسق ومعصية، وليس كفراً. فهذا التفصيل لابد منه لفهم قول السلف الصالح وعدم خلطه بقول الوعيدية. That which is correct is that actions to the Righteous Salaf can sometimes be a condition for the validity of eemaan, meaning that they are from its reality, eemaan can expire by the absence of these (actions), such as prayer. And they can sometimes be a condition for the obligatory perfection (of eemaan), like the rest of the actions whose abandonment is sinfulness and disobedience, but not disbelief. This tafseel (clarification) is necessary in order to understand the saying of the Righteous Salaf and not to mix their saying with the saying of the Wa'eediyyah (Mu'tazilah). Here, al-Shibal himself has used the terms shart sihhah and shart kamaal, which according to Musa Millington would mean he has used an "oxymoron" (a usage that combines contradictory meanings), and that Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh al-Fawzan and the other Shaykhs) corroborated this (and have thus supported Irjaa'!). It is clear that Musa does not understand the intent and purpose behind the usage of these terms. Interestingly, in another quote that the faajir kadhdhaab included in his so-called 8 page clarification, and which is from Shaykh Abdur-Rahmaan al-Barraak, also affirms the usages of these terms (whilst criticizing Ibn Hajar's generalization), looks like Musa Millington forgot to read that as well: هذا الفرق بين المعتزلة والسلف لا يستقيم سواء أريد بشرط الصحة أو شرط الكمال: جنس العمل ، أو أنواع العمل الواجبة ، أو الواجبة والمستحبة ؛ فإن الأعمال المستحبة من كمال الإيمان المستحب، فلا تكون شرطاً لصحة الإيمان، ولا لكماله الواجب. وأما الأعمال الواجبة: فليس منها شرط لصحة الإيمان عند جميع أهل السنة، بل بعضها شرط لصحة الإيمان عند بعض أهل السنة كالصلاة. This differntiation between (the saying of) the Mu'tatzilah and (the saying of) the Salaf is not sound, irrespective of whether jins al-'amal (action in principle, in its genus), or the types of obligatory action, or obligatory and recommended actions are intended by the (terms) shart kamaal and shart sihhah. For the recommended actions are from the recommended perfection of eemaan, hence they are not a condition for the validity of eemaan and nor (a condition) for its obligatory perfection. As for the obligatory actions, then nothing from them is a condition for the validity of eemaan in the view of all of Ahl al-Sunnah. Rather, some of them are a conditionn for the validity of eemaan to some of Ahl al-Sunnah, such as the prayer... Again we see the word "shart" (condition) being used in relation to the validity (sihhah) of eemaan and perfection (kamaal) of eemaan. We also see Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen have some speech on this in his Sharh al-Arba'een al-Nawawiyyah (p. 337): أي إنسان يسألك ويقول: هل الأعمال شرط لكمال الإيمان أو شرط لصحة الإيمان؟ نقول له: الصحابة رضي الله عنهم أشرف منك وأعلم منك وأحرص منك على الخير،ولم يسألوا الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم هذا السؤال، إذاً يسعك ما يسعهم. إذا دلّ الدليل على أن هذا العمل يخرج به الإنسان من الإسلام صار شرطاً لصحة الإيمان، وإذا دلّ دليل على أنه لا يخرج صار شرطاً لكمال الإيمان وانتهى الموضوع ...whichever person asks you and says: Are actions a condition of perfection of eemaan or a condition of the validity of eemaan? We say to him: the Companions (radiallaahu anhum) are more noble than you, more knowledgeable than you, and more eager than you for goodness. And they did not ask the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) this question. Therefore, what suffices them suffices you. When evidence shows a person leaves Islam by this action then it becomes a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan. And when evidence shows that he does not exit (Islaam) it becomes a condition of the perfection (kamaal) of eemaan. The topic has ended. And Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said in a well-known and famous Q&A session around 12 years ago (recorded) which I translated at the time, in which he defended Shaykh al-Albaanee from the accusation of al-Irjaa', in response to a question: س : هل أعمال الجوارح شرط في أصل الإيمان وصحته أم أنها شرط في كمال الإيمان الواجب ؟ ج : تختلف ، فتارك الصلاة مثلاً كافر إذاً فعل الصلاة من لوازم الإيمان Question: Are the actions of the limbs a condition for the foundation of eemaan and its validity or are they are condition for the obligatory perfection of eemaan. Answer: This varies, the one who abandons the prayer for example is a kaafir, since performing prayer is from the binding necessities of eemaan... Which means that those actions whose abandonment is not kufr - upon this terminology for those scholars who use it - are from the shart kamaal (condition for the perfection of eemaan) as is indicated in the earlier quote from him in Sharh al-Arba'een al-Nawawiyyah. I could bring many more quotes here which are like this from the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, but the point here is just to illustrate that Musa Millington has erred when he tried to use the issue of the word "shart" (condition) - because he has not grasped the fact that the Scholars use these terms with a particular objective in mind, and that is to help differentiate the position of the Mu'tazilah from the position of Ahl al-Sunnah. If Musa was correct, it would mean that all of these Scholars who affirm that besides the prayer (whose abandonment they consider to invalidate eemaan) all of the other external actions (which are waajib and mustahabb) are shart kamaal (condition for perfection of eemaan), that they have expelled those actions from eemaan and therefore tended towards the Murji'ah, but this is not what is really going on. Unless you are familiar and well-grounded in this whole debate and understand the intent and purpose behind the terms and phrases used you will start speaking upon ignorance, without light and guidance and make mistakes and start accusing others of what they are free of, and this is what happened to the Haddaadiyyah and Takfiriyyah who accused Shaykh al-Albaani of Irjaa'. They strayed from moderation and balance, and did not pay attention to the words and clarifications of the Scholars, and upon this imputed to others what they are free of. Yes, we know the meaning of shart (شرط) is "that which is external to a thing and without which the thing cannot exist", this is the meaning of this word, and there are from the scholars who make this point that using the word "shart" is to be avoided when speaking about the topic of eemaan, but the fact is that many of the Major Scholars have used this word, as in shart kamaal and shart sihhah (for a particular objective), and thus in order to grasp this subject one has to be aware that it is largely a matter of understanding what a person intends behind these terms and what underlying usool he is operating from. POINT 2: It is vital we differentiate between the following groups: The first: The Ash'aris who say eemaan is tasdeeq linguistically and legislatively and that actions are not from eemaan and that eemaan does not increase and decrease. The second: The Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa (and the Maturidiyyah who follow them today) whose saying is that eemaan is tasdeeq and qawl and actions are not from eemaan. To them action in its genus, meaning in principle, is not from eemaan. They argue that to make actions a rukn (pillar) or juz' (part) of eemaan is to fall into the madhhab of the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij. These are the ones who may also say amal (action) is just a condition for the perfection of eemaan, and whatever is found in the statements of our Scholars (such as Ibn Baz) in refutation of the saying that "action" is a condition for the perfection of eemaan and this being the saying of those who say "eeman is just tasdeeq and action", is directed to this faction and NOT to those from Ahl al-Sunnah (see third group below) who say that the a'maal (as in individual actions) are a condition for the perfection of eemaan upon the view they hold that abandoning prayer (out of laziness) does not invalidate eemaan. The third: The scholars who hold that actions are from eemaan and that eemaan increases and decreases and they speak of and support the talaazum (binding necessity) between the internal (actions of the heart) and the external (actions of the limbs), but they hold that abandonment of the prayer (and fasting, zakah and hajj) [without juhood] is not major kufr. As such, all of the individual actions amount - in their view - shart kamaal (a condition for perfection) - and their intent behind this term is to differentiate the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah from the Mu'tazilah Wa'eeddiyyah as it relates to what invalidates a person's eemaan and in order to protect the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah that the kabaa'ir (major sins) do not expel from Islaam and invalidate eemaan. We cannot accuse them of being Murji'ah because of this. In this category is Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) and likewise we can enter Ibn Hajar. In the case of Ibn Hajar, he made a generalization that is not correct which is that the Mu'tazilah consider all actions to be shart sihhah and that the Salaf consider all actions are shart kamaal. But this mistaken generalization, whilst erroneous, does not really harm the underlying usool if it is affirmed that eemaan is belief, speech and action and that it increases and decreases and that inward belief necessitates outward action and Ibn Hajar actually supports these matters (which is the subject of another article), rather it is an error in a subsidiary matter which simply requires correcting along the lines that has already preceded so that the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah is not mixed with the Khawarij and Mu'tazilah. The fourth: Those scholars who hold actions are from eemaan, that eemaan increases and decreases and that inward belief necessitates outward action and that abandonment of prayer is major kufr. Amongst these scholars are those who see no problem in using the terms shart sihhah and shart kamaal to characterize the outward actions, so long as it is affirmed that action (amal) is affirmed as a pillar (rukn) or a part (juz) of eemaan. So they say the prayer is shart sihhah and the rest of the actions are shart kamaal. The fifth: Those scholars who hold actions are from eemaan, that eemaan increases and decreases and that inward belief necessitates outward action and that abandonment of prayer is major kufr. But they say that these terms (shart sihhah and shart kamaal) are not really known from the Salaf and it is best to avoid them and to simply say action is a pillar of eemaan or a part of eemaan. From the above, one would be able to understand the various statements and understand where each faction is coming from, and thereby treat those who are from Ahl al-Sunnah with justice, fairrness and accuracy, without accusing them of that which they are free of. POINT 3: Just as we should also be careful about when the scholars are speaking about (العمل) meaning here the genus of 'amal, as in action in principle and when they are speaking about (الأعمال) meaning by that the individual actions because those who hold that abandoning the prayer is not major kufr (like Shaykh al-Albaanee) say that actions (meaning that all individual actions on their own) are from the perfection of eeman, whilst acknowledging that action in principle is from eemaan, and a part of it. Shaykh Abdul Aziz bin Baz answered a question (this was after a live link up in Kuwait in 1998 where he gave a talk and then took some questions, the majority of them pertaining to eemaan and kufr) and these were published in Majallut al-Furqaan and I translated many of these questions and answers at the time, around 12 years ago. : أعمال الجوارح تعتبر شرط كمال في الإيمان أم شرط صحة للإيمان ؟ سماحة الشيخ ابن باز - رحمه الله : أعمال الجوارح منها ما هو كمال ، ومنها ما ينافي الإيمان فالصوم يكمل الإيمان والصدقة والزكاة من كمال الإيمان وتركها نقص في الإيمان وضعف في الإيمان ومعصية ، أما الصلاة فالصواب أن تركها كفر - نسأل الله العافية - كفر أكبر ، وهكذا فالإنسان يأتي بالأعمال الصالحات ، فهذا من كمال الإيمان أن يكثر من الصلاة ومن صوم التطوع ومن الصدقات . فهذا من كمال الإيمان الذي يقوى به إيمانه . Question: "The actions of the limbs, are they a condition for the perfection (kamaal) of Imaan of a condition for the validity (sihhah) of Imaan?" Answer: "The actions of the limbs – such as fasting, charity, zakaat – they are from the perfection of Imaan (kamaal ul-Imaan), and abandoning them constitutes weakness in one’s Imaan. As for the prayer, then the correct view is that leaving it is disbelief. Therefore, when a person performs the righteous actions, then all of that is from the perfection of Imaan (kamaal ul-Imaan)." Source: "Hiwaar Hawla Masaa’il it-Takfeer Ma’a Allaamah ash-Shaikh Abdul-Azeez Ibn Baaz" and it is found also in al-Furqaan Magazine (no. 94) and the lecture and the QA session is well-known and distributed. From the above, it is clear that Shaykh Abd al-Aziz bin Baz understands what the questioner is asking about (even though the questioner used the words "shart kamaal" and "shart sihhah", that it is about the individual actions (afraad) that make up outward eemaan, so he made the differentiation between that which constitutes kamaal (perfection) and that which constitutes sihhah (validity) along the lines as what has preceded from the other scholars quoted earlier, even if he himself, in his answer did not use the terms (shart kamaal and shart sihhah). And from here we understand the position of Shaykh al-Albaanee to whom all the afraad (individual actions) are "shart kamaal." However, elsewhere one may find that some the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah may criticise the saying that "action is shart kamaal" and here we understand that what they are speaking of is action in principle, in its genus, as a whole (and not the afraad, as in a'maal). So we distinguish between these two situations when we are trying to understand and decipher the statements of the Scholars and trying to reconcile between them - if we don't this may enter us into the snares and pits of the Haddaadiyyah and Takfiriyyah who are well known to use these subtle affairs to accuse some of the Major Scholars with Irjaa'. Refer also to this section found in Majallah al-Buhooth al-Islaamiyyah (vol. 79, 1427) in the treatise (منزلة العمل من الإيمان عند أهل السنة), "The Position of Action with Respect to Eemaan with Ahl al-Sunnah" (pp. 116-117): المبحث الثالث: الفرق بين مذهب أهل السنة ومذهب الوعيدية حينما يجعل أهل السنة العمل ركناً في الإيمان لا يتم الإيمان إلا به فإنهم لا يوافقهم بهذا مذهب الوعيدية في الإيمان . أهل السنة يقولون: يزول الإيمان إذا زال العمل جميعه أو الصلاة عند جمهورهم، ومنهم من يقول بزوال الإيمان إذا زالت بعض أركان الإسلام الأخرى الزكاة، الصوم، الحج ، لا يقولون بزوال الإيمان بزوال بعض أجزائه مطلقاً. أما أهل الوعيد من الخوارج والمعتزلة وغيرهم، فهم يرون أن الإيمان يزول ببعض أفراده حتى ولو كانت من غير أركان الإسلام، فعندهم أن من ارتكب كبيرة من كبائر الذنوب مثل السرقة، الزنى، شرب الخمر، أنه يخرج من الإيمان وهذا لا يقول به أحد من أهل السنة والحمد لله. قال الشيخ حافظ الحكمي مبيناً الفرق بين مذهب أهل السنة ومذهب الوعيدية : "والفرق بين هذا ـ أي قول المعتزلة ـ وبين قول السلف الصالح: أن السلف لم يجعلوا كل الأعمال شرطاً في الصحة ، بل جعلوا كثيراً منها شرطاً في الكمال، كما قال عمر بن عبد العزيز فيها: من استكملها استكمل الإيمان ومن لم يستكملها لم يستكمل الإيمان .والمعتزلة جعلوها كلها شرطاً في الصحة ، والله أعلم" . فالتعبير الصحيح أن يقال: إن بعض الأعمال شرط صحة كالصلاة، وبعضها شرط كمال كبر الوالدين وصلة الرحم وترك شرب الخمر، فبعضها يزيل الإيمان وبعضها لا يزيله، أما إذا زال العمل كله فلا صلاة ولا صيام ولا زكاة ، فهذا له شأن آخر، وإذا كان كثير من أهل السنة يكفرون بترك الصلاة فقط، فكيف إذا انضم إلى ترك الصلاة ترك الزكاة والصوم والحج ...، فهذا لا شك في زوال الإيمان من قبله The Third Study: The Difference Between the Madhab of Ahl al-Sunnah and the Madhhab of the Wa'eediyyah. When Ahl al-Sunnah make action ('amal) a pillar in eemaan without which eemaan cannot be completed, then (at the same time) they do not agree by way of this with the madhhab of the Wa'eediyyah in eemaan. Ahl al-Sunnah say: Eemaan ceases when all of the action ceases, or the prayer (is abandoned) in the view of the majority (who hold it to be major kufr. And amongst them is one who says that eemaan ceases when some of the other pillars of Islaam cease, zakah, fasting, hajj. [But] they do not speak of the ceasing of eemaan with the ceasing of [just] some of its parts, in an absolute sense. As for the Ahl al-Wa'eed from the Khawarij and the Mu'taziolah and others they hold that eemaan ceases with some of the afraad (individual actions) until even if they were other than the pillars of Islaam. Hence, to them, whoever commits a major sin from the major sins, such as stealing, fornication, drinking intoxicants, that he exits from eemaan. This is not said by anyone from Ahl al-Sunnah. Please note that this is actually the intent of Ibn Hajar when he contrasted between the position of the Salaf and the position of the Mu'tazilah and used the terms shart kamaal and shart sihhah (except that he made an incorrect generalization and did not make the tafseel). The author continues to quote from Shaykh Haafidh al-Hakamee in his Ma'aarij al-Qubool which is referenced as (2/31), but which is in fact (2/21) in the Dar Ibn Khaldun print: Shaykh Haafidh al-Hakamee said, explaining the difference between the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah and the madhhab of the Wa'eediyyah: "And the difference between this - meaning the saying of the Mu'tazilah - and between the saying of the Righteous Salaf is that the Salaf did not make all of the actions to be a condition for validity. Rather, they made many of them a condition for perfection, just as Umar bin Abd al-Aziz said regarding them, "Whoever perfects them has perfected eemaan, and whoever does not perfect them has not perfected eemaan. But the Mu'tazilah made all of them a condition for the validity (of eemaan), and Allaah knows best." Ma'arij al-Qubool (2/31). Hence, the correct expression is that it be said: Some of the actions are shart sihhah (condition for validity) such as the prayer, and some of them are shart kamaal (condition for perfection) such as righteousness to parents, keeping the ties of kinship, and abandoning the drinking of intoxicants. So some of them cause eemaan to cease, and some of them do not. As for when all of action ceases entirely, hence, there is no prayer, no fasting, no charity, then this is a different matter (requiring its own treatment), for when many of Ahl al-Sunnah make takfir by the abandonment of prayer alone, then how about when abandonment of zakat, fasting, hajj (and so on) is added to the abandonment of prayer, then there is no doubt about the ceasing of eemaan from his heart. This is a nice explanation and if you reflect on the last three paragraphs (from the quote from al-Hakamee, rahimahullaah, onwards), you will understand what was explained before that we have to be careful when reading the speech of the Scholars and we have to be able to distinguish when they speak of "amal" (as in the genus of amal, in principle) in the context of which they are refuting the Murji'ah who claim action (in principle is not from eemaan) and when some of the scholars speak of a'maal (the individual actions) being shart kamaal in the context in which they are refuting the Mu'tazilah. So if they are from the Scholars who say abandoning prayer is major kufr, they will say that not all outward actions are shart kamaal, and if they are from the scholars who say abandoning prayer is not major kufr, then they will say all the a'maal (as in indvidual actions) are shart kamaal. POINT 4: Upon what has preceded, we can now comment on the statements of Musa Millington: If one says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan then in that case he is putting actions outside of Imaan. This depends on the intent behind the one who uses this speech, if he is from those who say eemaan is only tasdeeq and qawl and 'amal is not from the reality of eemaan, then we treat this statement in light of that. And if he is someone who says that eemaan is belief, speech and action, and the acts of worship and righteousness are from eemaan and that eemaan increases and decreases, but holds that abandoning prayer (out of laziness) is not kufr and does not invalidate eemaan (and thus neither does the abandonment of the other actions individually), then we take his statement upon that and the most we can say is that it is best to avoid these terms, even though the meaning is correct (upon the view held by that person that the abandonment of prayer, fasting, zakah, hajj and other obligations is not kufr). And likewise, those other scholars who use the terms "shart sihhah" and "shart kamaal" (whilst holding abandoning prayer to invalidate eemaan), they simply intend to differentiate between the saying of the Mu'tazilah and that of Ahl al-Sunnah and so they say not all actions are shart kamaal, some are shart sihhah, like the prayer. He also said: To explain this more clearly we all know that Wuduu is one of the conditions of prayer. If there is no Wuduu there is no prayer. However, the Wuduu itself is not part of the prayer but rather a pre-requisite that must be established before the prayer is done hence outside of it. Likewise, the one who says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan is like the one that says that actions are a pre-requisite for its completeness but not part of it. This again illustrates that Musa Millington does not grasp the issues here. Since, the issue revolves around the word "shart" (condition) to Musa, then it makes no difference whether it is used for kamaal (perfection) or validity (sihhah) and Musa's observation should be applied equally to the issue of sihhah (validity), and his judgement should apply to all those Shaykhs who make use of this word (shart) in that which relates to the sihhah (validity) of eemaan. Since the mere use of the word shart means that the actions (whether their abandonment invalidates eemaan [like the prayer] or merely decreases its obligatory perfection) are outside of eemaan. Upon this, this means that all those scholars (including Ibn al-Uthaymeen, al-Shibal, al-Barraak and those scholars who endorsed the book of al-Shibal, like al-Fawzan, Ibn Baz etc. and likewise Shaykh al-Albani) have either endorsed statements or employed statements that expel actions from eemaan thereby constituting the propagation of Irjaa' (according to Musa Millington). But as I said this is a topic which is subtle and complex and it largely comes down to what the intent and objective is behind the usage of certain terms in the statements of the Scholars and which are to be understood in light of the underlying usool those scholars affirm in this particular topic of eemaan. We see that the scholars use the terms shart kamaal and shart sihhah for a particular objective with it being understood already that Ahl al-Sunnah hold actions are from and are part of eemaan. And there are some scholars who do not like the use of the word shart in this topic. It is really here that the Haddaadiyyah fell into ghuluww and in their claim of trying to defend the aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah relating to eemaan, they went to excess, and did not do justice in the topic and began to make baseless accusations, because they, unlike the scholars, did not grasp the subtlety of the topic and nature and intent behind the usage of the terms and phrases, and then began to ascribe to the Scholars (like Shaykh al-Albani) that which they are totally free and innocent of which they never intended, from near or far. And perhaps it is the case that some of the Haddaadiyyah and Takfiriyyah actually used this very fact (that some scholars disapprove of the use of the word "shart") as an opportunistic stepping stone for them to accuse other Scholars from Ahl al-Sunnah of being Murji'ah (whilst ignoring the fact that many other scholars have used this term for a particular objective, as has already been made clear). POINT 5: Here is the speech of Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) in Hukm Tarik al-Salat (p. 42): He is in the course of outlining Ibn al-Qayyim's discussion of the issue of the prayer, presenting the evidences for both views (whether its abandonment invalidates eemaan or not) and asking the question "is prayer a condition (shart) for the validity of eemaan or not?" and Shaykh al-Albaanee comments here: For this reason, he (Ibn al-Qayyim) recoursed finally to asking, "Will his eemaan benefit him? And is prayer a condition for the validity of eemaan?" I (al-Albani) say: Everyone who reflects upon his (subsequent) answer to this question will notice that he turned away (from answering it) to saying that the righteous actions will not be accepted except with the (performance) of the prayer. So where is the answer to the prayer being a condition for the validity of eemaan?! Meaning, that it is not just a condition for the perfection of eemaan (shart kaamaal), for all the righteous actions are a condition for the perfection with Ahl al-Sunnah, in opposition to the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah those who say that the major sinners will remain eternally in the fire, alongside the Khawarij making explicit takfeer of them (the sinners). Shaykh al-Albani actually references Fath al-Bari (1/46) in the footnote which is the same quote from Ibn Hajar that is under discussion in this thread. And this makes the intent of both Shaykh al-Albani and Ibn Hajar clear in that they are speaking of the afraad (individual) actions, that they are shart kamaal, upon the understanding that Shaykh al-Albani does not consider abandonment of prayer to invalidate eemaan. Important Note: The reader should know and understand that Ahl al-Bid'ah give attention and focus to certain themes and constructs in areas of knowledge, and their aim behind this activity is to use it as a stepladder (sullam) in order to beat and attack Ahl al-Sunnah. This is what the deniers of the attributes do with respect to the words "al-tanzeeh" and "al-tawheed" upon their particular presentation of them, and the same with all the groups of innovation. Likewise in our times, the Takfiriyyah and Haddaadiyyah have emerged and they compile, write and gather in the issue of eemaan, and their aim in reality is to use this as a stepping stone to attack the Scholars of the Sunnah and accuse them with Irjaa' for their own nefarious goals. They monopolize on the subtle nature of this subject and use the speech of some scholars (whose realities and applications they do not fathom) in order to build their accusations against others. It is my belief that this faajir kaddhaab, Abu Fujoor, is actually drinking from the mashrab of the Haddaadiyyah, grazing in their pastures, and using their stepping stones in order to attack the Salafi callers. [Note: Refer to the statement of Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel further below on this matter]. POINT 6: Musa Millington stated: Now, before we go into this, just to clarify my studies in this issue, we had to study and read Kitaab Ul Imaan by Ibn Taymeeyah in my first semester of Shar'eeyah in Madeenah (2002). And this topic is indeed a serious and deep topic which no one should enter into unless he has studied it comprehensively. It is clear that despite reading Kitab al-Eemaan Musa Millington is need of this same advice. He should not be speaking about a topic which he clearly has not comprehensively analyzed the sayings of all of the Scholars in this matter. POINT 7: At the end Musa Millington says, in his attempt to whitewash and defend the faajir kadhdhaab: This is what brother Abu Fajr wanted to clarify. I will say a frank, statement of truth to Musa Millington: Musa Millington knows in his heart and in the deeper rececesses of his soul that there are reasons why the faajir kadhdhaab in question is involved in these activities of trying to malign certain Salafi callers in the West by lying upon them, slandering them, attributing to them what they are free of, and twisting their words, or portraying them in the worst possible light. Just as Musa Millington knows for sure (he clearly read my first post in this thread) that the faajir kadhdhaab in question a) slandered me in falsehood (by claiming I "propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aariyyah") b) clipped the words of Ibn Hajar regarding the Salaf's view of the increase and decrease in eemaan and this being rejected by the factions of Ahl al-Kalaam (which includes the Ash'aris), c) clipped my own comment that eemaan is belief speech and action and d) clipped the statement of al-Baghawi that actions are a part of eemaan, that it is belief, speech and action and that it increases and decreases. And thus the parable of Musa Millington's attempts to cover for this faajir kadhdhaab becomes as follows: A man breaks into the house of another, smashing his door down, smashing his windows and damaging his property - his intent being to do as much damaged as possible from the outset - and he comes into the house and says to the owner "your kitchen door hinge needs fixing, its not right." When the oppression of this man is exposed and made clear to the people, along comes Musa Millington to cover for this man's oppression and damage and he says, "that's all this man wanted to fix (i.e. the kitchen door)" pretending to be ignorant of the oppresssion and damage that was done and of the fact that the actual intent from the beginning was to cause this damage. So instead of rebuking the oppressor and giving the right to the one who was wronged and oppressed, he covers for the oppressor, and says "this man only wanted to fix the kitchen door, so you need to fix it." So upon Musa Millington is to fear Allaah and show some muroo'ah and to say a statement of truth about this immature faajir kadhdhaab whose favourite hobby has become to collect as much puss as possible for drinking in the Hereafter, and whose reality is as clear as the daylight sun to the average Salafi in the West, leaving no excuse for people like Musa Millington (who say they have studied in Islamic instutions and have read Kitab al-Eemaan of Ibn Taymiyyah) to pretend and act differently to what the knowledge they possess about this individual (the faajir kadhdhaab under discussion) demands from them practically speaking. This is the Irjaa' of the Murji'ah in practice! That a person can hold knowledge and facts in his heart without that requiring from him a certain defined outward behaviour (which is in fact necessitated by the knowledge and facts established in his heart and known to him to be true) and for this very thing Ibn Taymiyyah went to great lengths to refute the Jahmiyyah, on the principle of the binding connection between that which is inward (tasdeeq that implies actions of the heart) and that which is outward (the actions of the limbs).