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

[Abu.Iyaad]

The first post above was written hastily whilst I was preparing for a long two day journey and does not contain all the points I wished to add. I will recap what is in the above post and then move on to address a couple more issues inshaa'Allaah. The first post above was addressing the specific claim that I "propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aris" which is a slander (buhtaan) and false witness (al-qawl al-zoor). This was because of the following reasons: The accuser deliberately omitted the second page of the two-page chapter, just as he deliberately omitted the saying of Ibn Hajar at the bottom of the first page that the Salaf hold that eemaan increases and decreases and that they are opposed by the majority of the Ahl al-Kalaam (whiich includes the Ash'aris). This was no doubt deliberate on his behalf. Ibn Hajar spoke of eemaan both linguistically (lughatan) and legislatively (shar'an) and whilst he made an error in the language by defining eemaan as tasdeeq only (which is also the saying of the Ash'aris), he correctly outlined the position of the Salaf that eemaan legislatively (shar'an) is belief, speech and action. Hence, it is not possible to make the accusation that I "propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aris" since they hold eemaan is tasdeeq linguistically and legislatively. As for Ibn Hajar's generalization that the difference between the saying of the Salaf and that of the Mu'tazilah that actions (a'maal) are shart sihhah to the Mu'tazilah and shart kamaal to the Salaf, then this has no connection to the saying of the Ash'aris, since the Ash'aris do not hold actions are from eemaan in the first place, hence, the discussion of actions being shart kamaal or shart sihhah is irrelevant here with respect to the aqeedah of the Ash'aris in this matter, and the fact that Ibn Hajar was criticized for this generalization can in no way be used to make the slander that I "propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aris." This is because this statement of Ibn Hajar (with its incorrect generalization) is speaking of the difference between the Salaf and the Mu'tazilah with the Salaf not making takfir of abandonment of individual actions that make up eemaan, whereas the Mu'tazilah make takfir based upon abandonment of individual actions that make up eemaan. As for the Murji'ah, Ibn Hajar already explained their view a sentence or two earlier in the quote, that they hold eemaan to be belief (i'itqaad) and utterance (nutq) only. This shows on that on all these counts, the faajir kadhdhaab (aside from being guilty of dishonesty in quoting and accurately representing the intent and direction of the short chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah) has no basis for this slander. What is in the chapter, that eemaan legislatively (shar'an) is belief, speech and action, that eemaan increases and decreases (in opposition to the groups of kalaam), that actions are from eemaan is squarely in contradiction to what the Ash'aris are upon in claiming that eemaan is tasdeeq only lughatan (linguistically) and shar'an (legislatively), that actions are not from eemaan and eemaan cannot be subject to increase or decrease. This shows that the accuser is a jaahil muta'aalim, and that he got excited when he saw the quote from al-Shibal in the article compiled by al-Muwahhid al-Salafi (which the liar tried to claim was compiled by him) and in which al-Shibal points out the error of Ibn Hajar in the language as it relates to the word eemaan. After this, there were two more issues to I wanted to discuss. The first was another illustration of what other brothers have already pointed out and which is clear from my first post, that the faajir kadhdhaab is dishonest in quotation and translation. And the second was to address the issue of the terminology of shart sihhah and shart kamaal. However, it was brought to my attention through email that Musa Millington has come out in defence of the faajir kadhhaab and has spoken on this issue with a view to defending the action of the accuser. I will address both these matters in the posts below inshaa'Allaah.

[Abu.Iyaad]

I just went through all 405 pages of the Dar al-Thurayyaa print (1424H) of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen's sharh of al-Arba'een al-Nawawiyyah in order to find a quote that the faajir kadhdhaab attributed to the Shaykh on page 7 of his 8 page clarification. Because the mention of 'eemaan' occurs frequently within the forty ahaadeeth I thought I would check everything in the explanation. As already pointed out, the accuser is pretending to be the compiler of some quotes that were in fact compiled by a forum user called al-Muwahhid al-Salafi 6 years ago on a forum (http://www.muslm.net). However, he added one quote from himself right at the very end and the translation made me suspicious. This was what the accuser wrote: Ash-Shaykh al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: "...(Saying) 'Eemaan means in the language a tasdeeq' is totally incorrect because eemaan necessitates acceptance and submission..." There is no such sentence with this wording in Sharh al-Arba'een al-Nawawiyyah, and the phrase "totally incorrect" is not something whose equivalent you would find in the speech of the Scholars in this manner and context. I never found any such sentence but I did find two places there where the issue of the meaning of eemaan is discussed. And whoever made the translation into the above sentence is extremely stroppy and should not be translating at all. The issue here is accurately presenting the words of the Scholars in both wording and meaning. Now this might seem like a small issue but it is not, since - as other brothers have pointed out - it is a firmly established trait with this faajir kadhdhaab that he misconstrues, misattributes, and mistranslates (if he is not actually plagiarizing the translation from somewhere else, that is). Having said this, I received an email from a brother only yesterday who had experienced the same thing with this faajir kadhdhaab, this is what he wrote: When I read what what you wrote: 'The accuser simply translated some of the statements compiled by the original author and pretended he was the compiler. I am certain that he never even looked at the original printed text for a single one of those quotes, because the original referencing for some of the citations is poor and the accuser has translated everything without checking or verification. ' and: 'This proves that the accuser is ignorant and a pretender to knowledge who does not understand what he is saying or writing, is unable to grasp the reality and import of what he is quoting, and is unable to do justice to what he is pretending to be the compiler of!' it reminded me of something which I also discovered about him just by accident when I was searching for the source of something sent to me by a brother in my locality. Whilst doing that, it turned out that Abu Fajr was also passing on things without checking their accuracy, evidently because it suited his purpose of bashing some of the salafees here in the UK!! It seems as if he is someone (as described in the email you put up on ST) ‘...who doesn’t check or verify what he narrates and nor does he have concern for it.’ The thing I was searching for was the translation of a saying of Ibn Taymeeyah. It turned out that he had also used it by copying it directly from another website without checking its translation or its context and then used it in his refutation of SPUBS. I have no beef with this guy and he has no beef with me, so I think I’m pretty impartial in this affair. Yet to me, when I saw a small example of his lack of knowledge and amaanah over something as easy to check as a quote of Ibn Taymeeyah from Minhaaj-us-Sunnah, it was obvious that you can’t take this fella too seriously! He just seems like an immature kid trying to score brownie points, may Allah guide him. Yet this doesn’t detract from the fact that he is untrustworthy in his relaying of things. He clearly is, as a number of people have now seen. I’ve sent you a copy of my email which I sent out to some of the brothers a little while ago regarding this affair. And then this is the copy of the emai that the brother included in his email to me: As sallamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu I got this quote today from one of our brothers in an email and seeing as there were some issues connected with it, I thought I’d send it to a few more of you in order for the benefit to be greater (and not just for the brother who sent it). Here’s what the brother sent: Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said: You should not look at what the person used to do, rather you should look at what kind of person they are today. The one who is too concerned about people's pasts, is just like Iblees who said to Allaah, "You created me from fire and you created him from clay" [al-Minhaaj volume 2 page 430] Here are my points concerning this: 1. The source for this quote is mentioned as being ‘al-Minhaaj’. Sometimes, people who quote this work of Ibn Taymeeyah’s do so likewise. However, the full title of this work is Minhaaj-us-Sunnat-un-Nabaweeyah Fee Naqd Kalaamish-Shee’ah Al-Qadareeyah, a truly amazing book, perhaps the likes of which has not been authored since with respect to the refutation of the Raafidah Shee’ah, mashallah. 2. When I received the email from the brother and read it, I decided to check the reference myself as I do have this amazing work and also because I know that the brother didn’t translate it himself (he doesn’t speak Arabic). Seeing that he didn’t give the source of where he got it from, I thus decided to check its authenticity (i.e. was it really there in the book) and also its accuracy. Alhamdollilah, the reference was fairly accurate, as there was something there on page 430 of volume 2 of this book. The edition which I have is in 8 volumes and is the 1st edition which was printed by Imaam Muhammad Bin Sa’ood university in Saudi Arabia in 1986. Although a few other editions have been printed in the last few years (summarised version and editions with smaller print and less volumes), this edition is probably still the most oft-quoted one. 3. When I read page 430 of volume 2, I found it different to what the brother had sent. Here’s what I found from the beginning of page 430 up until the verse quoted by Ibn Taymeeyah (my own translation): ‘And the human being moves from imperfection to perfection, so, the imperfection of the beginning should not be looked at. Rather, the perfection of the ending should be looked at. And the human being should not be censured for the fact that he was a drop of sperm, then became a leech like clot, then became a chewed-like morsel of flesh, when Allah had after that created him in the best of stature. And whosever looks at what was (before), then he is from the category of Iblees who said: “I am better than him, You created me from fire and you created him from clay.” ‘. So, as you can see, whosoever translated this quote, was not entirely competent or faithful to the words of Ibn Taymeeyah!! Rather, it seems as if whoever embarked upon this translation tried to grasp at a general meaning of what they thought Ibn Taymeeyah was saying. Alas, I don’t have Arabic windows on this computer, for if I did, I would have put up the actual Arabic for you to compare for yourselves as to what I have translated and what I was sent. 4. As I mentioned above, the book of Ibn Taymeeyah is about the Raafidah Shee’ah. Because I knew this, this made me then read around this quote, as I suspected (rightly) that this speech of his was Ibn Taymeeyah in the midst of one of his amazing intellectual demoilitions of the people of desire. Thus, this quote that was sent to me is not only poorly translated, but it is also out of context. By reading what was sent, we are made to see it in a general light. However, if you read the page before this quote and the pages after it, you will see that Ibn Taymeeyah is actually using it in reference to the Raafidah Shee’ah who argue that because ‘Alee became Muslim as a child, he did not commit sins (in a state of Jaahileeyah) unlike Abu Bakr and ‘Umar who became Muslims as adults after being disbelievers!!! The quote is in the context of the arguments of the Raafidah, as is the whole 8 volume work, and not general. Here’s what ibn Taymeeyah says on page 429, a few paragraphs before the quote: ‘And as for what the Raafidah say that the Prophet before Prophethood and after it, that a mistake or a small sin did not occur from him, and likewise the Imaams, then this is something in which they isolated away from from the rest of the sects of all the Ummah, and it opposes the Book and the Sunnah and the ijmaa’ of the Salaf. And from their intent with this, is to vilify the leadership of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with both of them, because they became Muslims after disbelief. And they claim that ‘Alee, may Allah be pleased with him, had not ceased to be a believer and that he did not make a mistake ever and nor did he commit a sin ever, and likewise was the perfection of the twelve (Imaams). And this is from that which makes clear their lying and their misguidance to every possessor of intelligence who knows their condition. And because of this, they were the most exaggerated of groups in this and the furthest of them from intelligence and hearing.’ Ibn Taymeeyah then goes on to elaborate on this argument of theirs until he reaches the above quote and then still carries on thereafter with further discussions around the topic. 5. So, where did this quote come from then??? Like I said, there was nothing mentioned in the email about where it came from. However, I do believe it probably came from the internet, as when I googled the quote, there were about four places that came up. Interestingly, all of them had ‘...gets bogged down...’ instead of ‘...is too concerned about people’s past’. Perhaps, even the inaccurate quote was quoted inaccurately!! Two of the websites were takfeeree, and I’ll give the brother the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t get it from them. From the other two, one of them was Yemen based and directly took the quote from the other, a North-American website. It’s interesting that the Yemen based site had this quote in a refutation of some of the Salafis of the West saying how lame they are, yet the individual who wrote the refutation (Abu Fajr Al-Kanadee) clearly doesn’t have the academic/knowledge-based initiative to check the validity of what he quoted. Anyhow, it doesn’t seem to be clear who actually translated it and originated the spreading of words that were part of a specific argument but were then made into a general advice! 6. You may find some of this tiresome, but it leads to the next point, which is perhaps the crux of the matter. I’m sending this email because this is not the first time this has happened. I have actually advised the brother to check what he sends out before (the last time was even more dangerous with ahaadeeth being copied and pasted from the internet and being sent out and not actually realising that they were NOT from the Prophet [sallalahu alaihi wa sallam] because the people who had posted them on their own websites had simply made mistakes)... No more comment is needed here.

[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).

[Abu.Iyaad]

Al-Haafidh al-Hakamee on Eeemaan In the book Ma'aarij al-Qubool (Dar Ibn al-Qayyim, 1415H, 2/597) al-Haafidh al-Hakamee (rahimahullaah) says: And al-Eemaan, this is the second level in the aforementioned hadeeth (of Jibreel), and eemaan in the language (linguistically) is "al-tasdeeq". The brothers of Yusuf said to their father, "And you would not believe us" (12/17), (meaning), he is saying, "not make tasdeeq of us (bi-musaddiqin [lannaa]). And as for in the Sharee'ah, it is applied in two situtations. Sidenote: It would be useful for the reader to refer to POINT 10 in the very first post in this thread which explains how the faajir kadhdhaab's tongue started wagging and how he got prematurely excited just because al-Shibal said that to define eemaan as tasdeeq is "the saying of the Ash'aris" not realizing that al-Shibal is speaking here of an error in the language, whereas the issue of the legislative (shar'iyy) definition of eemaan is a separate matter which he dealt with separately (and in which the Ash'aris also claim that eemaan is tasdeeq alone in contrast to Ahl al-Sunnah). Then al-Hakamee goes on to explain that eemaan is applied in two situations in the Qur'an. The first is when eemaan is used on its own, and the second is when it is mentioned alongside islaam. And he explains in each of the two situations the word eemaan will take on a different meaning. When mentioned alone, it refers to the whole deen, when mentioned along with Islaam, it refers to what is inward. Then he explains eemaan with the Salaf (2/600): And this is the meaning that the Salaf intended with their saying (may Allaah have mercy upon them): Eemaan is i'tiqaad (belief), speech (qawl) and action (amal) and that all the actions enter into the meaning (musammaa) of eemaan. And regarding that, al-Shaafi'ee quoted the consensus of the Sahaabaah, Taabi'een and those who came after them from those who reached them. Then later (2/602) he says: And the rest amongst them (the Mu'tazilah) said: [Eemaan] is action, utterance and belief. 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 (shartan fil-sihhah). Rather, they made many of them a condition for perfection (shartan fil-kammaal), 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. If the chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah had contained just this much (instead of the quotes from Ibn Hajar and al-Baghawi), I wonder if the faajir kadhdhaab (and likewise Musa Millington) would have taken the same course of action as they have. We see that al-Haafidh al-Hakamee gave a linguistic definition of eemaan and stated it is tasdeeq. Then he gave a shar'iyy definition of eemaan with the Salaf (actions are from eemaan and eemaan is belief, speech and action). Then he explained the position of the Mu'tazilah (that eemaan is belief, utterance and action), and then he contrasted between the position of the Salaf and that of the Mu'tazilah by using the terms "shart kamaal" and "shart sihhah". The only difference between his statements and that of Ibn Hajar is that Ibn Hajar made the erroneous generalization for both the Salaf (all actions are shart kamaal) and the Mu'tazilah (all actions are shart sihhah). If we were to take his speech upon a mahmal hasan (good interpretation) we could say that since he does not consider the abandonment of prayer to be major disbelief (as appears from him in al-Fath), when he says that actions (a'maal) are a condition for the perfection of eemaan, he means, in contrast to the Mu'tazilah, the abandonment of the individual actions (amounting to kabaa'ir) do not expel from Islaam, which is a correct meaning (and this is how we treat the position of Shaykh al-Albaani as well). However, al-Haafidh al-Hakamee states that the Mu'tazilah consider all actions to be shart sihhah, and as we have noted from some of the other scholars, this is not strictly correct either, the Muta'zilah do not treat all actions like this, only those whose abandonment amounts to major sin. Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar on Eeemaan Compare the above to what was quoted from Ibn Hajar (and what can be found between 1/46-51 of al-Fath): والإيمان لغة: التصديق Eemaan, in the language, is tasdeeq. This is also said by the Ash'aris just as it is also said by Scholars from Ahl al-Sunnah, such as al-Hafidh al-Hakamee - but the intent being to explain the asl of the meaning linguistically, even if other affairs also enter into the overall meaning. وفي الإيمان لأحمد من طريق عبد الله بن عكيم عن ابن مسعود أنه كان يقول: "اللهم زدنا إيمانا ويقينا وفقها " وإسناده صحيح، وهذا أصرح في المقصود، ولم يذكره المصنف لما أشرت إليه."تنبيه": تعلق بهذا الأثر من يقول: إن الإيمان هو مجرد التصديق.وأجيب بأن مراد ابن مسعود أن اليقين هو أصل الإيمان، فإذا أيقن القلب انبعثت الجوارح كلها للقاء الله بالأعمال الصالحة، حتى قال سفيان الثوري: لو أن اليقين وقع في القلب كما ينبغي، لطار اشتياقا إلى الجنة وهربا من النار.قوله: "وقال ابن عمر الخ" المراد بالتقوى: وقاية النفس الشرك والأعمال السيئة والمواظبة على الأعمال الصالحة.وبهذا التقرير يصح استدلال المصنف And in [Kitab] al-Eemaan of Ahmad through the route of Abdullah bin Ukaym from Ibn Mas'ood that he used to say, "O Allaah increase us in eemaan, yaqeen (certainty) and fiqh (understanding)" and its isnaad is authentic. And this is more explicit in (explaining) what is intended (here). The author (al-Bukhari) did not mention it because of what I have pointed to. "Notification". The one who says "Emaan is purely tasdeeq alone" has clung to this narration (as evidence). And it has been responded to in that the intent of Ibn Mas'ud is that yaqeen (certainty) is the asl (foundation) of eemaan, so when the heart has certainty, the limbs set into motion, all of them, in order to meet Allaah with righteous actions, until Sufyaan al-Thawree said, "If yaqeen settled in the heart as is desirable, it would have flew, in ardent desire of paradise and fleeing from the Fire." And [the saying of the author, al-Bukhari], "... and Ibn Umar said..." (to the end), the intent behind "al-taqwaa" is to protect oneself from shirk and the evil actions and to be constant in the righteous actions. And through this corroboration (i.e. by Ibn Hajar in what he has brought of supporting narrations), the istidlaal (extraction of evidence) of the author (i.e. al-Bukhari) is validated. Here Ibn Hajar is corroborating that actions enter into eemaan, validating and supporting the istidlaal of al-Bukhari and is addressing the claim of those who claim eemaan is purely tasdeeq alone. 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 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 are a condition for its completeness. So from here comes their saying that it increases and decreases — as will follow. The intent of Ibn Hajar here has already been explained in what has preceded, and conceptually speaking, upon what Ibn Hajar intends, there is nothing really wrong with this statement when the intent behind it is to refute the Mu'tazilah - except that the wording is ambiguous and contains a generalization (and thus it is criticized by the Scholars from this angle). He intends that all the afraad (individual actions) are shart kamaal (keeping in mind the view of some that abandonment of prayer does not invalidate eemaan) and upon this basis do the Salaf say (in Ibn Hajar's explanation) that eemaan is subject to increase and decrease (in opposition to the groups of kalaam who expel actions from eemaan from the Murji'ah, or who say that if something of eemaan goes, all of it goes from the Wa'eediyyah). This is what Shaykh al-Albaanee intends too. وقد استدل الشافعي وأحمد وغيرهما على أن الأعمال تدخل في الإيمان بهذه الآية: {وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ} إلى قوله: {دِينُ الْقَيِّمَةِ} قال الشافعي: ليس عليهم أحج من هذه الآية.أخرجه الخلال في كتاب السنة And al-Shaafi'ee and Ahmad and others besides them used as evidence that actions enter into eemaan the following verse, "And they were not commanded except to worship Allaah alone" up to His saying, "the upright religion" (98:5). and al-Shafi'ee said, "There is nothing more decisive in argument against them [the opposers] than this verse" reported by al-Khallaal in Kitab al-Sunnah. (al-Fath 1/48). والجامع بين الآية والحديث: أن الأعمال مع انضمامها إلى التصديق داخلة في مسمى البر، كما هي داخلة في مسمى الإيمان And the combining of the verse (2:177) and the hadeeth ("eemaan is seventy-odd branches") together affords that actions (a'maal) being augmented (added) to tasdeeq enter into the meaning (musammaa) of al-birr, just as they enter into the meaning (musammaa) of eemaan. (al-Fath 1/50-51) Here Ibn Hajar clearly supports the position of Ahl al-Sunnah that all the actions (a'maal) enter into the musammaa (meaning) of eemaan, along with tasdeeq. 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 it a condition for its completeness." As indicated this is simply an incorrect generalization for both the views of the Salaf and the Mu'tazilah by Ibn Hajar (whereas al-Hakamee made a generalization only for the view of the Mu'tazilah, stating that they hold all actions to be shart sihhah, whereas this is not the case in reality). We are now in a position to illustrate very clearly the differencebetween the Irjaa' of today's Maturidiyyah, the followers of the Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa and the position and statements of Ibn Hajar and Shaykh al-Albani, and this will be covered briefly in the next post inshaa'Allaah. After, that we will finish off with some important lessons, benefits and summary points from all of what has preceded inshaa'Allaah.

[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).

[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!