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

[Abu.Iyaad]

Musa Millington has written a follow up (12 pages, PDF) which I read this afternoon, a few hours ago, and it is clear to me that he is acting dishonestly. I will illustrate his dishonesty in this post inshaa'Allaah. Before proceeding, I suggest the reader go back to post no. 4 above and read it fully, then to come back here (the blatant lies will be more obvious then). Musa Millington and the Use of the Word Shart (Condition) After I wrote my first post in this thread (exposing the dishonesty and deception of Abu Fujoor), Musa Millington put up a post on the TriniMuslims website. This was the post I addressed in detail in post no. 4 above.This is a quote from that post of Musa (emphasis is mine): 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. Take note of the following: First, Musa is actually addressing the word shart (condition) and its meaning in the language. Second, notice how he has illustrated the meaning of the word shart by giving the example of wudoo. Now, here is the question that Musa should really answer. Is wudoo a condition for the validity (sihhah) of the prayer or a condition for the perfection (kamaal) of the prayer? Of course it is a condition for the validity (sihhah) of the prayer! And we will give Musa credit that he is not going to tell us that praying without wudhoo makes the prayer lose its kamaal! Third, by giving this example (of wudhu), it is very clear that what Musa is really addressing is the meaning of the word shart and not so much as to whether it is being applied to the sihhah or kamaal of something. What are the implications of this? This is what I addressed in detail in post no. 4. I said that if you want to argue like this, (which Musa clearly is because he used the example of wudhu to illustrate the meaning of shart), it means you have to find fault with everyone who uses the word shart, whether it be to say a) that all actions are shart kamaal or b) all actions are shart sihhah, or even c) to make tafseel and say some are shart sihhah and some are shart kamaal. This is because if you are going to use the example of wudhu (which is shart sihhah for the prayer), clearly, your focus is not just on issues which constitute kamaal, rather your intent is to explain the reality of the word shart, irrespective of whether it is being applied to matters that are said to be from the sihhah of something or the kamaal of something. In reality, Musa messed up here, because it means that the issue is not Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani not making the tafseel (in applying shart kamaal and shart sihhah to actions in general), rather it is using the very terms in the first place (of shart kamaal and shart sihhah), there being no difference which one you use. Thus, even those Shaykhs who made tafseel of Ibn Hajar's kalaam and affirmed the use of shart sihhah and shart kamaal in that tafseel, they have also expelled actions from eemaan and agreed with the Murji'ah. And as such whatever Abu Fujoor wrote with respect to Ibn Hajar's kalaam using the tafseel of the Scholars who say that in reality only not all actions are shart kamaal, but some are shart sihhah, then even that tafseel does not exit from being Irjaa'. Hence, the point is that if you want to find Irjaa', you will find it in more places than just the kalaam of Ibn Hajar, if this is the way you want to argue (through the word shart and its meaning). You cannot insist that the generalization of Ibn Hajar is incorrect, from the angle that it is a generalization, and then affirm the clarification of those scholars who then go on to use the same terms except that they limit its use (shart kamaal) to everything except the prayer. Here, you are now being inconsistent in your entire positioning in this affair. Now, when Musaa made this post and I saw that he is not really grasping the underlying issues, I dealt with it in great depth in post no. 4, in my first response to him and from my statements (in post no. 4) was the following: 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. Further, in post no. 4 above, I dealt with the specific issue of the use of the phrases shart kamaal and shart sihhah. I acknowledged and pointed out the incorrect generalization in Ibn Hajar's words (in applying the terms shart kamaal to the position of the Salaf and shart sihhah to the position of the Mu'tazilah), and I made the point that whilst we acknowledge the problem with the word shart, if you are going to make an issue of it (which Musa was doing by the fact that he used the example of wudhoo to illustrate), then it has to apply equally whether it is used for kamaal or for sihhah, and thus it is not just Ibn Hajar who is wrong who used it and generalized it for all actions, but also anyone who acknowledge the use of this word (shart) in relation to actions of sihhah and kamaal (even if they made tafseel in the affair). The very fact that Musa Millington used the example of wudhoo (which is shart sihhah) for the prayer shows that whatever I said and explained was accurate and highly relevant to the crux of the discussion. However, Musa did not see it, is not seeing it, and probably won't see it and he is simply attempting to cover for himself and not acknowledge the implications of what he wrote. I pointed out all these things in post no. 4. and explained that the issue largely comes down to what you intend and mean by these terms, because we see many of the scholars clearly using the term shart within the context of actions and eemaan (whether that be for its sihhah or kamaal). Musa is simply making a fake display of "my whole issue was with it being used unrestrictedly in eemaan and Amjad Rafeeq is fleeing from clarifying this and making the point something else." Musa must be blind if he claimed to read post no. 4 and then starts writing what he has written in his latest PDF and trying to escape with blatant lies. Illustrating Musa's Deception More Clearly So let us look at pages 3 and 4 where the main content of his 12 page PDF starts, to illustrate that he has not acted honestly and is telling lies (I will quote the two pages and then comment further below): POINT 1: Musa's claim: The usage of the word shart (شرط ) is not the issue of contention. Rather the issue of contention is the use of the word “shart” unrestrictedly as a component of the definition of Imaan. I never, in one paragraph or one word of my post discussed the issue of how the scholars used the word "shart" in specific instances. What blatant doublespeak and clear dishonesty, a blatant lie! Musa gave the definition and explanation of the word shart through the example of wudhu and the prayer. Wudhu is shart sihhah for the prayer (and not kamaal). He's clearly discussed how this word shart is used in a specific instance besides the issue of eemaan and is intending to put across its meaning in the language. The point that we take from this is that the problem with the word shart applies in all situations, a) whether you say all actions are shart kamaal, b) whether you say all actions are shart sihhah, c) or whether you make tafseel and say some actions are shart sihhah and some are shart kamaal. No matter which of these three statements we are dealing with, the problem is there, so long as the word shart is used. This would mean (upon Musa Millingtons's exlanation of shart) that if Shaykh Ibn Baz (or any other Salafi Shaykh) says that the prayer is shart sihhah for eemaan, then he has expelled prayer from eemaan just as Musa Millington uses the example of wudhu to show that it is a "shart" and is therefore outside of prayer and not from the prayer itself". This mistake of Musa in consistency is what I clarified this in detail in post no. 4 and I dealt with the whole complexity of these terms and I said that we have to be careful and really look at the actual intent of the scholars who use these terms and speak about matters appropriately, otherwise, we will start wronging people and attributing to them what they are free of. I also covered the problem of its unrestricted use in the generalization of Ibn Hajar's statement. Unfortunately, in this latest PDF cover-up, Musa is deliberately concealing all these things I clarified in detail in post no. 4. It is from honesty that you acknowledge the truth that your opponent has brought. I did it in my very first post when I explained that though Abu Fujoor is a dishonest liar, a dishonest liar can sometimes speak the truth and that there are indeed some observations on the statement of Ibn Hajar. That is right at the beginning of this thread. Just like in that very same first post, in POINT 4, I clarified the erroneous generalization in the statement of Ibn Hajar. However, Musa Millington is too cowardly to admit the truth of whatever I clarified and explained. It is Musa that is twisting things around and the poetry he quoted (...she accused me with her own iniquity, and slipped away..) actually applies to him not to me walhamdulillaah. POINT 2: Then a paragraph later Musa says (emphasis mine): It is therefore very important to understand how the word “shart” is used by the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. This will display to us that the issue of contention is not the usage of the word itself but rather its use unrestrictedly in the definition of Imaan. This is the second bold lie from Musa as a means of covering for himself and blunder he made in his original post on TriniMuslims, and it is another example of doublespeak. When you give the example of wudhoo and the prayer, then you are clearly speaking of the word itself (shart), since the example you gave is of a thing which is shart sihhah (i..e wudhoo). This means that whether you speak of something that relates to the sihhah (validity) of something else, or the kamaal (perfection) of something else, the issue revolves around the word shart, because the mere use of it means that you are speaking of something external to something else (be it shart sihhah or shart kamaal). Hence, thisi is just a smokescreen being used by Musa Millington and it shows that his statement, "This will display to us that the issue of contention is not the usage of the word itself but rather its use unrestrictedly in the definition of Imaan..." is meaningless empty speech. Of course, it has everything to do with the word itself! Have you already forgoten that you explained its meaning by using an example of an act that is shart sihhah for the prayer?! It is for this very reason, I addressed in detail the issue of the word shart, and its usage in the matters of eemaan, and I pointed out the problem with it in the view of some of the Scholars, and I said that since some scholars dislike its use and since other scholars clearly use it in order to make the tafseel in the matter of eemaan, we have to base things on the intent of the scholars who are using these terms, so that we do not make false accusations against anybody. Musa Millington is too cowardly to acknowledge that I already addressed all of this in detail in my posts and made the relevant clarifications. Instead, he has attempted to twist the realities and to cover for himself. This becomes even more clear when we see his comments on what he quotes next. POINT 3: What Musa does next is to quote something from Ibn Baz (rahimahullaah) through Shaykh Rabee' in which Ibn Baz uses the terms shart sihhah and shart kamaal and makes a tafseel on the issue and says the prayer is shart sihhah and other actions are shart kamaal. Take a look at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page of the scans I have included above. Musa says the following, after the quote from Ibn Baz (rahimahullaah): As everyone is able to see, the usage of Ibn Baaz regarding the word “shart” was detailed and he demonstrated that his use of this word was to show that some actions take away a person’s Imaan completely and some actions would make him a sinner whereas he would not have left Imaan . However, this is entirely different to the manner in which Imam Ibn Hajar used the word “shart” when he said: “So the Salaf say: Imaan is ‘Aqeedah in the heart, statements of the tongue, and actions of the limbs. They mean by this that actions are a condition (“shart”) for its completeness…” Notice that Ibn Hajar generalized the used of “shart” and Shaikh Ibn Baaz specified and explained the usage of the word “shart”. Hence, the issue of contention was not as Amjad Rafeeq imagined or wished to imagine... Allaahu Akbar, what a sneaky deceptive lie and blatant attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. This is outright misrepresentation and dishonesty on behalf of Musa. Let us take Musa out of his slumber! Musa Millington said in his post on TriniMuslims (emphasis mine): ...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. This is what brother Abu Fajr wanted to clarify... When you understand this, then it is meaningless for Musa Millington to try and pretend that his whole issue was not the word shart in and of itself but its unrestricted usage in the topic of eeman. Rather, this is a blatant contradiction and empty doublespeak! There are a further two issues here which show Musa's dishonesty: The first issue: In his original post on TriniMuslims, the first time he posted on this issue, Musa himself quoted me from my first post in this thread as saying the following (which is from the very first post in this thread): 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... I must ask Musa Millington, (after asking him to wake up and come around): What did I just address here in my first post in something which Musa himself quoted from me? What did I explain and clarify right at the very beginning? I've just clarified the generalization from Ibn Hajar! What does it tell you when Musa then says in attempting to cover himself: Notice that Ibn Hajar generalized the used of “shart” and Shaikh Ibn Baaz specified and explained the usage of the word “shart”. Hence, the issue of contention was not as Amjad Rafeeq imagined or wished to imagine... To make things worse, and Musa's lie and twisting of things even more serious, immediately after I stated the above in the very first post in this thread, I actually quoted al-Shibal making this same tafseel, acknowledging it. 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). And what makes this absolutely clear is that in that same very first post, I quoted from Kandu's Master's thesis where he stated the following: However, there remains an indication of an observation about what al-Haafidh mentioned about the intent of the Salaf behind the entrance of actions into the meaning of eemaan, when he said, "And they intended by this that actions are a condition for its perfection." This saying is not correct, for it is not preserved from any of the Salaf that they said this. Rather, the Salaf, when they mentioned action in the definition of eemaan, they intended [to say] that action is a part (juz') of eemaan, as is the reality of the eemaan in the usage of the Qur'an, for every application of the [word] eemaan in the Qur'an has been explained therein that a man does not become a believer except with action alongside belief (i'tiqaad) and tasdeeq. But this does not mean that eemaan cannot be attained by doing all of the action, rather a person can be a believer whilst falling short in some of the action and his eemaan decreases to the extent that his action decreases. This is in opposition to [the saying of] the Khawarij and the Mu'tazilah who say that all of eemaan disappears when something of action is missing built upon their corrupt foundation that eemaan is a single entity, when some of it goes, all of it goes. I cleared this issue up in my very first post. Then I spoke about this again and again, in detail in post 4. After all of this, Musa Millington is trying to pretend that I diverted away from addressing this issue, which is clear dishonesty, especially after he quoted me making the very clarification he is claiming that I am fleeing from! In short, Musa Millington tried to address the issue of "shart" in his first post on this matter. I then replied to him in detail (which is found in post no. 4) showing him the implications of what he wrote which he is not stomaching very well. I had already clarified the issue of Ibn Hajar's generalization in my first post, so that was dealt with and done. Now Musa is falsely claiming that I fled from the issue of discussing the use of the word shart in a generalized sense in the issue of eemaan despite Musa himself having already quoted my statement in his post on TriniMuslims clarifying the generalization in the statement of Ibn Hajar and despite me repeatedly mentioning and acknowledging the tafseel of the scholars in my posts in this thread. This is an example of very bad and stroppy lying. At least try to cover your tracks in a more professional way if you feel you need to lie and deceive! The second issue: The statement of Shaykh Bin Baz was mentioned by Shaykh Rabee' in the context of Shaykh Rabee' finding fault with the use of the words shart sihhah and shart kamaal, because Shaykh Bin Baz used them at times. This was the reason that Shaykh Rabee quoted that statement of Ibn Baz in the article. Shaykh Rabee' wrote that he used to warn from these statements before Shaykh al-Albani used them and that even Shaykh Ibn Baz used them as well at times, and despite the fact that those Shaykhs used these terms and that he (Shaykh Rabee') did not, rather he warned from them, the oppressive Haddaadiyyah still accused him of Irjaa' (as well as accusing Shaykh Bin Baz and Shaykh al-Albani). In light of this, go and take a look at the scan of the second page I have included in this post above, just after Musa quotes the statement of Shaykh Ibn Baz, and look at what Musa quoted from me which is highlighted in yellow, which he is criticizing. In that quote I said. 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). This is the very point that Shaykh Rabee is hinting at himself, that both the use of shart sihhah and shart kamaal are to be avoided. I made this very point to Musa Millington before he even quoted Shaykh Rabee's speech in his 12 page PDF. The issue is really comes down to the word shart, since one can say that the prayer makes a person's eemaan valid, correct (saheeh) or that not lying or stealing and being righteous to one's parents makes one's eemaan complete (kaamil), this is fine, but when you add the word shart (condition), it becomes problematic, so the issue revolves around the word shart. This is what Shaykh Rabee' said after quoting from Ibn Baz (and his use of these terms): أقول: وهذا الذي نقوله دائماً، ونحض الناس على التمسك بقول السلف: "الإيمان قول وعمل واعتقاد، يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية". وذلك أنكم ترمون بالإرجاء وتحاربون من لا يقول العمل شرط كمال في الإيمان ويحذر من القول به، فكيف ينجو من حكمكم بالإرجاء على من يصرح به؟ فأي جريمة ترتكبونها في حق الإسلام وأهله. وأي أصل أخبث من هذا الأصل عندكم الذي يضلل به أئمة السنة مثل ابن باز والألباني وغيرهما. أقول: هذا مع أني حذرت من أن يقال العمل شرط صحة أو شرط كمال في الإيمان مراراً وتكراراً والاقتصار على تعريف السلف للإيمان بأنه "قول باللسان واعتقاد بالقلب وعمل بالأركان". I (Rabee') say: This is what we say always, we encourage the people to stick to the saying of the Salaf, "Eemaan is speech, action and belief, it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience". This is because you (Haddaadiyyah), you accuse with Irjaa' and make war against the one who does not even say that action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan and who warns from this saying (meaning himself, Rabee'), so how then will the one who says this (i.e. that actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan) be saved from your judgement of Irjaa' (upon him)? So what crime are you committing towards the right of Islaam and its people? And what foundation is more vile than this foundation by which you declare as misguided the Imaams of the Sunnah, such as Ibn Baaz and al-Albaani and others (i.e. with the accusation of Irjaa' because they made use of these phrases). I say this whilst I myself warned from that it be said "action is a condition for the validity (of eemaan)" or "action is a condition for the perfection (of eemaan)", repeatedly, again and again, and restricting oneself to the definition of the Salaf for eemaan in that it is, "Speech of the tongue, belief of the heart and acting with the pillars. So my point is that if you are going to take issue with the word shart (condition) you have to be consistent and apply it not just to matters which are from kamaal (perfection), but also to matters which are from sihhah (correctness, validity). So if Musa Millington uses the example of wudoo to illustrate the word shart, then it means Musa has to be consistent and say that anyone who says that prayer is shart sihhah for eemaan is essentially saying that prayer is not from eemaan, but is outside of eemaan. There is absolutely no difference between the two. Again, Musa is too cowardly to admit this and is blatantly lying when he says his issue was not about the word shart. And this was the point I was trying to get across to Musa which he clearly has not grasped. That either be consistent in what you are saying and find fault with anyone who uses the word shart (even if it be in matters that constitute the sihhah of eemaan, such as the prayer), or at least come to terms with the fact that some scholars have used these terms (shart kamaal and shart sihhah) and other scholars have disapproved of them, and so therefore we in our discussion have to be reasonable and careful in this issue and look at the actual intention of each scholar who used these terms and try to understand what is the view he is getting across rather than fixate on the terms he is employing for which he might even be criticized by others, otherwise we will become unjust and start accusing scholars of something they are free of (from them Ibn Hajar and al-Albani). This is what the Haddaadiyyah fell into (and they also monopolize on the sayings of some scholars to attack and harm others - which is why on their websites, you see them giving great attention to writing and compiling on these matters). POINT 4: What really seals off the deception of Musa Millington is the fact that the very point I made in post 4 above that the problem extends to the term "shart sihhah" and not just to "shart kamaal" and that just by making tafseel of the generalization in Ibn Hajar's statement you still have not escaped the problem of expelling actions from eemaan, Musa Millington went on to bring a quote from Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan in his PDF response to that particular post of mine. In this quote of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan, there occurs: وقوله:أن العمل قول وعمل واعتقاد،ثم يقول:إن العمل شرط في كمال الإيمان وصحته،هذا تناقض!!! ... فالإيمان قول وعمل واعتقاد،والعمل هو من الإيمان وهو الإيمان،وليس هو شرطا من شروط الإيمان وهو الإيمان، وليس هو شرطا من شروط صحة الإيمان أو شرط كمال أو غير ذلك من الأقوال التي يروجونها الآن، فالإيمان قول باللسان واعتقاد بالقلب وعمل بالجوارح وهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية And his saying: That [eemaan] is speech, action and belief, and then say that action is a condition for the perfection ((kamaal) of eemaan and it validity (sihhah), this is a contradiction. For eemaan iss speech, action and belief and action is from eemaan, and it is eemaan, and it is not a condition from the conditions of eemaan. It is eemaan. It is not a condition from the conditions of validity (sihhah) of eemaan or a condition of perfection or other than that from the sayings which they are spreading now. For eemaan is speech of the tongue, belief of the heart and action of the limbs and it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience. As I explained, if your criticism is going to be based around the word shart, then be consistent and don't contradict yourself by saying "Yes, the statement of Ibn Hajar needs tafseel" and then you make the tafseel using the very terms "shart sihhah" and "shart kamaal" which still does not make you escape from the very problem you are trying to criticize others for. I raised this point first when I saw Musa Millington explaining the word shart by giving the example of wudhoo. Now, in his 12 page PDF - after I explained all this in detail in post 4 in this thread - he is twisting things around, using empty doublespeak and trying make it look as if he is making the very point that I actually corrected him on first! By bringing these statements of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan and Shaykh Rabee', Musa Millington is only validating my criticism against him and his contradiction that I addressed in detail in post no. 4 in this thread. Except that he is trying to turn things around in order to cover himself and avoid facing the truth! Alhamdulillaah, the issue is very simple. Abu Fujoor is an established liar and slanderer, which is established without any doubt to the generality of the Salafis. He is not reliable in quoting, translating and honestly representing the writings and views of others. He slandered me and claimed I "propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aris." I responded to his deception and lies (and his blatant concealment of the remaining content in the two-page chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah in which it is established that a) actions are a part of eemaan, and that b) eemaan is belief, speech and action and that c) eemaan increases and decreases in opposition to the groups of kalaam - through this, as al-Barbahaaree said, a person is free of Irjaa', its beginning and its end), and I acknowledged that there are observations on Ibn Hajar's speech, and I clarified and made those observations in the very first post in this thread, so the issue was done with. This is alongside the fact that the intent behind the chapter itself was merely to include quotes from scholars who stated the ijmaa' of the Salaf that eemaan is aqeedah or i'tiqaad (using those words specifically) in addition to qawl and amal, as a means of refuting those contemporary Mu'tazilah who claim you can have eemaan in something without having aqeedah in it. When the plot failed - which was not really about correcting mistakes or pointing out ambiguities but more about takalluf and ta'aalum and attacking and discrediting anyone associated with Maktabah Salafiyyah due to wider agendas, because that is the general pattern here - Musa Millington came to defend the action of Abu Fujoor and in the process he put in his two cents, blatantly ignoring Abu Fujoor's dishonesty and deception, and making not even a whimper of it. So in his post he spoke of the issue of shart, giving the example of wudhoo being a shart for the prayer, and hence being outside of the prayer and not from it. This undermined the very purpose of Abu Fujoor's initial clarification. When I addressed Musa's post and in particular the whole issue of the word shart (condition) as it relates to its use in the matter of eemaan and in the speech of the scholars he decided to deceive the people in his latest PDF and turn the realities around by making blatant lies. From these blatant lies are a) his claim that I was trying to divert the issue of the use of the word shart unrestrictedly in the subject of eemaan to just discussing the word shart (which is deceptive empty doublespeak)! and b) that I failed to address the real issue of the generalization in Ibn Hajar's statement, whereas I addressed it numerous times in my very first post (in this thread). Indeed, justice is rare to find!