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

[Abu.Iyaad]

In the book "Foundations of the Sunnah" whose contents I translated 16 years ago (with the exception of the biographies translated by Abu Talhah Dawud Burbank - rahimahullaah), I included a chapter as an appendix in order to address the false idea spread at the time by Hizb al-Tahrir and al-Muhajirun that "one may hold eemaan in the punishment in the grave, but not hold aqidah in it."

In refutation of this claim I included quotes from Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (rahimahullaah) and al-Baghawi (rahimahullaah) in that short chapter. In both of their statements, they speak of the Salaf holding that eemaan is i'tiqaad or aqidah (in addition to qawl and 'amal), which was useful for the purposes of refuting the followers of Omar al-Bakri since the followers of Omar al-Bakri were trying to claim that one can have eemaan in a matter of knowledge without having aqidah in it, and this is opposed to what the Salaf were upon.

This is the full text of that chapter:

84

85

On the basis of this chapter, someone has recently accused me of propagating the aqeedah of the Ash'ariyyah. In this post I will address this matter inshaa'Allaah with the following points.

POINT 1: The accuser is established upon clear evidences as a sinful liar (faajir kadhdhaab) with the people of knowledge and likewise to the students of knowledge and callers in the West who have baseerah with respect to his condition. This matter is well-known and established with those who have followed up this individual over the past year or two. To see some clear examples of his lies and deception, refer to the following two articles:

1. Reply to Excessive Lies and False Accusations (http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=10858), by Abdulilah Lahmami
2. Tawriyah v Taqiyyah (http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=10886), by Taqweem bin Ahsan Shah

To truly grasp the character of this individual, I strongly reccommend the above two articles because what is happening here is no different to what has been highlighted in the above two articles. Here are some sample quotes from the two brothers (may Allaah reward them):


Abu Fajr Abdul-Fataah al-Kanadi as-Somali (a youth in his early twenties) known by us to be active in spreading fitnah and discord on the internet forums and mailing lists has again spread tribulation amongst the Salafis by his vile writings.

Sheikh Rabee' has advised the people not to spread the fitnah taking place in Yemen. Due to Abu Fajr's persistance, Sheikh Rabee' now knows about his actions and has asked me to tell his likes to stop spreading fitnah on the internet and to keep out of these affairs. After Speaking to Sheikh `Ubayd al-Jaabiree and going through Abu Fajr's false accusations then Sheikh `Ubayd al-Jaabiree said: "He should be called Abu Fujoor" Meaning: The one who in known for many evils. The Sheikh said refute his lies because of his fujoor in speech. Regarding his persistent fitnah making regarding spreading the fitnah of Yemen, Sheikh Abdullaah al-Bukhaari said: "This shows his fitnah and deviation."

Abu fajr is not honest and is very imprecise when narrating. He doesn't check or verify what he narrates and nor does he have concern for it. Some of the brothers in Masjid as-Sunnah know him well and have advised him but his arrogant nature continues. He has gathered between lies and arrogance. As for arrogance then this makes him not accept the truth and as for lies then this leads him to not check things and claim things about others that are not true. And also:


So fear Allah yaa abaa fujoor! Consider these words before its too late and make tawbah to Allah - a sincere tawbah for tryng to unecessarily harm the salafees.

Your attacks have not harmed any of the Shuyookh who you tried to belittle nor any of Salafee institutions nor the Salafee daa'ees such as Abdulilah and other than him in the least, as much as the spittle of a mosquito, wa lillAllahil-hamd!

But remember, the dua of the oppressed is answered by Allah! And you have indeed oppressed many of the Salafiyoon from the daa'ee to the Aalim and your claws spared no-one, even though no one has been injured by your measly throwing of minuscule pebbles.

By Allah I truly fear for you, incase you are from those, as the Messenger of Allah warned as occurs in the authentic hadeeth found in the saheeh of Imam Muslim from Abee Hurayrah, who are Muflis or bankrupt on Yawmul-Qiyaamah so he ends up giving away his good deeds till he has no more and the peoples bad deeds are thus given to him and consequently he is thrown into the fire due to his slandering, lying and oppression and what is worse than oppressing Ahlus-Sunnah and likening them to the shia and other false slanders! POINT 2: Ahl al-Sunnah are the most just of people, an established liar may sometimes have some speech which is correct, just as the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallaam) said to Abu Hurayrah (صدقك وهو كذوب) "He spoke the truth to you even though he is a great liar." The statement from Ibn Hajar (rahimahullaah) under question does have a couple of observations. However, none of these observations justify the slander that I "propagated the aqidah of the Ash'aris" through this particular chapter. This excessiveness and injustice is from the accuser. Rather, a just person, after the reading the full two pages including the quote from al-Baghawi and my own comments would conclude that the translator (myself) has affirmed and supported the creed of the Salaf in eemaan when looking at the chapter as a whole, and that the most that can be said is that the speech of Ibn Hajar requires an observation or two so as to avoid any confusion. This is given the fact that the intent behind quoting Ibn Hajar (and al-Baghawi) was to illustrate that the Salaf, in the legislative (shar'iyy) definition of eemaan, have stated that it is aqidah (along with qawl and 'amal), and through this invalidate the claim of the Tahriris who deny belief (i'tiqaad, aqidah) in the punishment of the grave. The least that a just person would say is that the correct shar'iyy definition of eemaan has been corroborrated in the chapter and on top of that that Ibn Hajar's speech required a note or two so as to avoid any confusion.

POINT 3: In his 8 page clarification therefore, the accuser deliberately omitted my own comments and the quote from al-Baghawi (rahimahullaah) from this very short chapter in which it is confirmed that the Salaf hold the shar'iyy eemaan to be aqidah (i'tiqaad), qawl and 'amal. Likewise, he also ommitted the speech of Ibn Hajar at the end of the quote where he says:


As for the second point, then the Salaf hold that eemaan increases and decreases, whereas most of the people of kalaam (theological rhetoric) reject this by saying that if it is liable to decrease, then it is doubt.By ommitting the second page of this chapter (and the part about eemaan increasing and decreasing at the end of the first page) the accuser has acted dishonestly and misled the readers to allow him to perpetrate his slander. As for the quote from al-Baghawi which was included in this chapter, this is what al-Baghawi wrote in Sharh al-Sunnah (al-Maktab al-Islami, 2nd print, 1983, 1/38-39) whose translation I included in the chapter:

اتفقت الصحابة والتابعون فمن بعدهم من علماء السنة على أن الأعمال من الإيمان... وقالوا: إن الإيمان قول وعمل وعقيدة يزيد بالطاعة و ينقص بالمعصية
The Companions, the Tabi'un and whoever came after them from the Scholars of the Sunnah are agreed that actions are (a part) of eemaan ... and they said: Indeed, Eemaan is saying, action and aqidah, it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience.And prior to this quote I stated:


Thus the Salaf agreed that eemaan is: aqeedah, statement and action.Hence, the chapter corroborates the position of Salaf and establishes actions are from eemaan. As for the Ash'aris, then actions do not enter into eemaan, neither linguistically, nor legislatively, and hence, there is no issue of increase and decrease of eemaan to them. By this it becomes clear that the accuser has made a gross slander by claiming that I propagated the aqidah of the Ash'aris by way of this chapter which he did by deceptively omitting and concealing the remaining contents of the chapter and concealing Ibn Hajar's speech about the Ahl al-Kalaam, which includes the Ash'aris, that they oppose the Salaf by rejecting eemaan increases and decreases.

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 whose abandoment 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, 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 and does not apply. 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.

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. مع أن العمل عند أهل السنة والجماعة ركن من أركان الإيمان الثلاثة: قول وعمل واعتقاد، والإيمان عندهم يزيد وينقص. خلافاً للخوارج والمعتزلة. والله ولي التوفيق
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). Alongside this, action to Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is a pillar from its three pillars (which are): statement (qawl), action (amal) and belief (i'tiqaad), and eemaan in their view, increases and decreases, in opposition to the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah, and Allaah is the granter of success.POINT 5: In the chapter in question in Foundations of the Sunnah, I established the three pillars of eemaan with the Salaf which are belief, speech and action, I also established that the actions (a'maal) are from eemaan, and I also established that eemaan increases and decreases and all of this is in opposition to the Khawarij, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Jahmiyyah and Murji'ah.

POINT 6: In his 8 page clarification, the accuser claims to have compiled some speech of the scholars regarding the statement of Ibn Hajar. In reality he is a liar in his claim, he did not compile them, but they were compiled by a forum user called al-Muwahhid al-Salafi on the website http://www.muslm.net (http://www.muslm.net/) almost 6 years ago. 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.

POINT 7: al-Muwahhid al-Salafi, the original compiler of those quotes (which the accuser pretended to have compiled in his 8 page clarification), included the following author (and his work) in the list of resources which one can refer to for a a fair treatment of the position of Ibn Hajar on the topic of eemaan:

الشيخ محمد إسحاق كندو في رسالة ماجستير وهي تحقيق علمي قائم على استقراء وأبعد ما يكون عن وجهات النظر والتحليلات التي نراها اليوم من البعض
Shaykh Muhammad Ishaq Kandu in his Master's thesis [Manhaj al-Haafidh bin Hajar al-Asqalaani fil-Aqidah], and it is a knowledge-based verification founded upon comprehensive analysis and it is very far-removed from the short glimpses and analytical [studies] which we see today from some (people).This thesis has a section specifically on Ibn Hajar's position on Eemaan, I will cite sections from it. In the 3rd volume (p. 1138), the author states (and he is citing the very quote from Ibn al-Hajar whose translation I included in the chapter):


The First Study: The Definition of Eemaan

Al-Haafidh defined eemaan in the language (lughah) and he defined it in the legislation (shar'), and he mentioned the difference between the sects in its definition and he supported the statement of the Salaf in that regard, and he supported their saying with what indicates it from the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, and he explicitly undertook refutation of the statements which oppose that. And I shall mention some of his speech in this study in the following sections...Then he states:


[B]The First Pursuit: The Definition of Eemaan in the Language

Al-Haafidh said: "Eemaan in the language is tasdeeq" and he spoke of its derivation, so he said, "Al-Eemaan - in what has been said - is derived from al-amn (safety, security), but this has an observation against it, due to the variation between the meanings of al-amn and al-tasdeeq, unless a metaphorical meaning is observed for it, so that it is said, 'He became secure when he believed him, he became secure from takdheeb (rejection)'."

I say: What al-Haafidh has mentioned of the definition of eemaan in the language is supported by what is said by al-Azhari [one of the Imaams of the language, d. 370H] in his book "Tahdheeb al-Lughah", he said, "And as for eemaan, then it is the verbal noun of aamana eemaanan fa huwa mu'min (he believed with eemaan, so he is a believer). And the people of knowledge from the linguists and other than them are united that its meaning is tasdeeq"

Yet Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah criticised the explanation (of the meaning) of eemaan with tasdeeq and he explained that word eemaan is not synonymous with the word tasdeeq, and this is from four angles for which there is no place to mention here. But the essence of it is that he holds the view that the word eemaan is not used except in informing (khabar) about what is unseen. As for informing about what is observed, then the word eeman is not used for it, but the word tasdeeq is used. And Shaykh al-Islaam has also verified (the view) that eemaan is derived from al-amn.Eemaan in the language is tasdeeq and something more, which is iqraar (corroboration), even if the asl of its meaning is tasdeeq. However it is not synonymous with tasdeeq. In this matter Ibn Hajar fell short. As for the Shari'ah definition of Eemaan, then Kandu continues to cite from Ibn al-Hajar, (which is the same quote included in the chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah):


The Second Pursuit: The Definition of Eemaan Legislatively and the Differing Regarding It

Al-Haafidh said: "In the Sharee’ah it means ‘tasdeeq’ (attesting to the truth) of what the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) brought from his Lord, and this much is agreed upon. Then there is a difference. Is anything else a condition on top of that? Such as stating this eemaan upon the tongue, as well as it being in the heart, or action upon what is attested to by doing what is ordered and leaving what is forbidden?" [Then he mentioned the differing] up until where al-Haafidh said, "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 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 it a condition for its completeness."

And al-Haafidh never mentioned - in this place - the saying of the Jahmiyyah regarding eemaan, but he mentioned it in his explanation of Kitab al-Tawhid, quoting from Ibn Hazm, he said, "And the furthest of them are the Jahmiyyah who say that eemaan is that which is in the heart only, even if he manifests the kufr and the [doctrine of] the trinity with his tongue, and worships idols without it being due to taqiyah [for fear of one's life]."

And these five sayings are the ones that are known to the people regarding the definition of eemaan, legislatively (shar'an). There is no doubt that all of them, with the exception of the saying of the Salaf, are corrupt and some of them are more evidently corrupt than others.

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.Then Kandu continues in the next section:


The Third Pursuit: Explanation of the Saying of the Salaf Regarding Eemaan and Clarification of Its Correctness With Evidences

Al-Haafidh mentioned that the wording related the Salaf about eemaan is what Imaam al-Bukhari has mentioned at the beginning of Kitab al-Eemaan from his Saheeh, when he said, "[I]And it - meaning Eemaan - is speech and action, it increases and decreases."

Al-Haafidh said - in explanation of that - "As for speech, what is intended by it is utterance of the two testimonials, and as for action, what is intended by it is that which is more general, from the action of the heart and limbs, so that belief and acts (of worship) may enter into it." (al-Fath 1/46)

Entering actions into the meaning of eemaan is the most important points of difference between the Salaf and the opposing sects. Imaam al-Bukhaaree has abundantly brought evidences which indicate that actions enter into the meaning of eemaan from the Book and the Sunnah and al-Haafidh aided that by explaining those evidences and explaining the angle of evidence from them, and he mentioned other (varying) narrations in completion and explanation of them.Then the author Kandu, quotes the verse in al-Baqarah 2:177 (which explain what is al-Birr) and the hadeeth, "Eemaan consists of seventy odd branches..." which al-Bukhari brought and then he brings the commentary of Ibn al-Hajar upon it within which there is:


And the combining of the verse and the hadeeth together affords that actions 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)And he also cites from Ibn al-Hajar in another place:


And al-Shaafi'ee and Ahmad and others besides them used as evidence that actions enter into eemaan the following verse, "[B]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).The author, Kandu, then continues to cite more examples to establish that Ibn Hajar supports the position of the Salaf that actions are from eemaan and that eemaan increases and decreases.

POINT 8: The intent behind quoting all of this from the book Manhaj al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar fil-Aqidah was to give a fair and accurate depiction of where al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar stands on the issue, which is that he supported the position of the Salaf in general, and that he outlined and supported their view that actions enter into the meaning of eemaan, and he refuted the opposers in a general (but not detailed) way, as is noted by Kandu at the end of the section, a few pages later (see p. 1145). Alongside this, there are some observations on some of his statements when taken in isolation. This is different to the position of the Ash'aris who say that both lughatan (linguistically) and shar'an (legislatively) eemaan means tasdeeq only, that actions are not from eemaan, and that eemaan does not increase or decrease.

POINT 9: Upon what has preceded, to make the accusation that I "propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'ariyyah" by way of this particular chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah indicates that the accuser is unjust and dishonest, and has only confirmed what is already established that he is a sinful deceptive liar. If he was just and truthful, he would have quoted the full chapter (its only two pages) instead of hiding the second page, and would have said that whilst the view of the Salaf regarding eemaan has clearly been established, and that the translator's intent behind quoting Ibn Hajar was to establish the shar'iyy definition of eemaan with the Salaf, an observation on Ibn Hajar's statement would have been helpful so as to maintain clarity. This is very far from the gross exaggeration and unjust slander that I "propagated the aqidah of the Asharis" by way of this chapter. Hence, it is upon this accuser to take back his slander and to abide by the justice with which he has been commanded:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ لِلّهِ شُهَدَاء بِالْقِسْطِ وَلاَ يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَى أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ اعْدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Well*Acquainted with what you do." (Al-Ma'idah 5:8)POINT 10: Finally, to illustrate the jahl of this established liar, lets take a look at a quote which he used (from al-Shibal) in order to lay the accusation against me that I propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aris. This ignorant accuser got excited when he saw that al-Shibal made a remark upon a particular statement of Ibn Hajar in another place (which is not the quote that I included in the chapter), that "it is the saying of the Ash'aris" and from this he thought he could level the charge of "propagating the aqeedah of the Ash'aris against me", not realizing that what what al-Shibal and Ibn Hajar said are in one valley, and the accuser is in another: Al-Shibal, the author of al-Tanbeeh 'alaa al-Mukhaalafaat al-Aqadiyyah Fil-Fath al-Baaree, wrote:

قال الحافظ في الفتح 1/164: "وأما الإيمان بمعنى التصديق فلا يحتاج إلى نية كسائر أعمال القلوب – من خشية الله وعظمته ومحبته والتقرب إليه – لأنها متميزة لله تعالى فلا تحتاج لنية تميزها. . "اهـ.

ت: هذا القول متعقب؛ إذ هو قول الأشاعرة، لأن الإيمان في اللغة ليس مجرد التصديق؛ بل هو التصديق وزيادة الإقرار، فهو لغة مشتق من الأمن. وقد نبَّه على هذا أبو العباس ابنُ تيمية في كتابه الإيمان الكبير 7/289-293 ضمن الفتاوى أما في الشرع فالإيمان؛ الاعتقاد بالقلب والإقرار باللسان والعمل بالجوارح والأركان.

Al-Haafidh said in al-Fath (1/164): And as for eemaan with the meaning of tasdeeq, then it does not require a niyyah (intention) like all the other actions of the heart such as awe of Allaah, venerating Him, loving Him and becoming near to Him, because they are distinguished for Allaah, the Exalted, [i.e. by their nature] and do not require a niyyah to distinguish them..."

[Comment]: This statement requires a follow-up since it is the saying of the Ash'aris...What al-Shibal means here that this is the saying of the Ash'aris in the linguistic (lughawiyy) definition of eemaan, and he continues:


... because eemaan in the language is not tasdeeq alone, rather it is tasdeeq and additional iqraar (corroboration), and in the language it is derived from al-amn. And Abul-Abbaas Ibn Taymiyyah has pointed this out in his book Kitaab al-Eemaan al-Kabeer (7/289-293) within al-Fataawaa. Thus, there is a criticism upon the statement of Ibn Hajar in the lughawiyy (linguistic) sense. Then al-Shibal explains the shar'iyy definition of Eemaan:


And as for in the legislation (al-shar'), eemaan is belief in the heart, corroboration with the tongue, and acting through the limbs and pillars.The point here is that Ibn Hajar spoke of eemaan both linguistically (lughatan) and legislatively (shar'an). Linguistically, he defined eemaan deficiently (as tasdeeq) which is something the Ash'aris also do, and thus it can be said that this linguistic definition is a saying of the Ash'aris. However, legislatively (shar'an), Ibn Hajar affirmed and supported the position of the Salaf that eemaan is belief, speech and action (whereas the Ash'aris hold that eemaan is tasdiq alone, even legislatively). The criticism against Ibn Hajar is from the linguistic sense, this is the angle from which Ibn Hajar was criticized by the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, and this is what al-Shibal is indicating here, that to define the word eemaan as being tasdeeq alone in its linguistic derivation, is a saying of the Ash'aris, which is incorrect and an error in the language.

But as for the Shar'iyy sense, which defines our aqidah on this topic, then al-Shibal says it is belief, speech and action, and Ibn Hajar (in the quote in question) explained the position of the Salaf, stating that the shar'iyy definition of eemaan with the Salaf is belief, speech and action, and he supported this saying against the other sayings as explained above (except that he made a mistake in a subsidiary issue which is an incorrect generalization when trying to differentiate between the saying of the Salaf and that of the Mu'tazilah).

Upon this, the slander of the deceptive liar regarding "propagating the aqeedah of the Ash'aris" becomes unveiled, and the quote he tried to use to slander me is in fact against him and not for him. 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!


Summary of This Post

1. Indication (in POINT 1) that Abu Fujoor is an established liar, an untrustworthy and unreliable narrator in what he translates and transmits and one who is arrogant in the face of being corrected and cautioned for his transgressions against others.

2. Acknowledgement (in POINT 2) that even established liars can sometimes speak what is correct, and upon this, that there are indeed some observations on Ibn Hajar's kalaam, even if Abu Fujoor slandered me by saying I propagated the aqeeadah of the Ash'aris.

3. Scans of the full two pages from the chapter in question in the book Foundations of the Sunnah.

4. Indication of the quotes and statements that Abu Fujoor deliberately concealed from the chapter in question and which establish that a) actions are from eemaan b) eemaan is belief, speech and action, c) eemaan increases and decreases and repulsion of the slander that I propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aris.

5. Explanation (in POINT 4) of the error of Ibn Hajar in his generalization of the use of the terms "shart kamaal" and "shart sihhah" in outlining the position of the Salaf and the Mu'tazilah. Also quotation from al-Shibal making the tafseel in this regard.

6. Quotations from the Master's Thesis of Muhammad Ishaq Kandu "Manhaj al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar fil-Aqidah" in which the following matters are made clear:

a) Ibn Hajar's linguistic definition of eemaan and the criticism of it by Ibn Taymiyyah

b) That none of the Salaf used the phrase (actions are shart kamaal for eemaan) and what is correct is that actions are from and are part of eemaan.

c) That Ibn Hajar in general supported the position of the Salaf against the Innovators from Ahl al-Kalaam and the Murji'ah by affirming actions are from the musammaa of eemaan and that eemaan is belief, speech and action and that eemaan increases and decreases.

[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 (http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/fatawaDetails.aspx?BookID=2&View=Page&PageNo=4&PageID=11464) (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. 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:

"[B]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):


89


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:


86



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):


88


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:


87


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'tazilahAnd 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)


90


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 completenessHere 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 completenessAs 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 (http://www.salafitalk.com/threads/977#post1782) (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):


91

92


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' (http://rabee.net/show_book.aspx?pid=3&bid=260&gid=0) 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!

[Abu.Iyaad]

Alhamdulillaah, this next passage from Shaykh al-Raajihee is perfect to illustrate the points I have been making all along. Before you read the statement of Shaykh al-Raajihee please take note of the following facts (based on what has preceded):


Firstly, I exposed the slander of Abu Fujoor al-Kadhdhaab that I propagated the aqidah of the Ash'aris (and this is just another in a long list of his slanders against other Salafi callers).



Secondly, that I exposed his deception in hiding content from the two-page chapter which was directly relevant to the nature of the accusation he tried to level against me (this adds to his history of dishonesty in quoting and transmitting).



Thirdly, that I established in that chapter that a) actions are from eemaan, b) the legislative definition of eemaan with the Salaf is belief, speech and action, c) that to the Salaf, eemaan increases and decreases, this being opposed by the groups of Ahl al-Kalaam.



Fourthly, I acknolwedged that even a liar can still speak what is correct, and affirmed that despite his slander against me from an angle, the statement of Ibn Hajar has a couple of observations.



Fifthly, I clarified all those observations in the very first post, and which were related to: a) the definition of eemaan linguistically as tasdeeq, b) the generalization in Ibn Hajr's speech when explaining the difference between the position of the Salaf and that of the Mu'tazilah, c) the saying of actions are condition for the completion of eemaan (through Kandu's Master's thesis).



Sixthly, with this, the matter was finished and completed and the evil plot of Abu Fujooor al-Kadhdhaab was halted in its tracks walhamdulillaah and the people learned once again the reality of this insecure, emotionally unstable faajir kadhdhaab.



Seventhly, then Musa Millington came along to cover for his associate but he misunderstood a point which I made in my first post, which was that the issue of the generalization using the terms shart kamaal and shart sihhah in the speech of Ibn Hajar cannot be used to slander me that I propagated the aqidah of the Ash'aris, because this discussion is irrelevant to the position of the Ash'aris who say eemaan in purely tasdeeq only (and actions are not from eemaan). Not grasping what I was saying here, and not realizing that I had already clarified and addressed the issue of the statement that "actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan" in my first post, and the generalization in Ibn Hajar's statement, Musa focused on the word "shart" and gave it's explanation by giving the example of wudhoo, which is a condition for the validity (sihhah) of the prayer whilst being outside, external to the prayer.



Eighth, this indicated his confusion, because on the one hand he is supporting his associate that the tafseel regarding Ibn Hajar's statement had to be made (i.e. the generalization that all actions to the Salaf are shart kamaal and all actions to the Mu'tazilah are shart sihhah), but on the other hand he is focusing around the word shart (by giving the example of wudhoo) which means that even those scholars who made the tafseel by saying that Ibn Hajar is wrong, and that some actions are shart kamaal and some actions are shart sihhah, they have not escaped statements of irjaa' either. So my point was to show some consistency. You are criticizing Ibn Hajar's generalization which you claim contains some Irjaa' but in order to clarify it you are bringing (by the very fact that you defined shart with the example of wudhoo) just another set of statements from the Scholars which also contain Irjaa' (according to your explanation of the word shart). If this is the case, then we need to hold our horses here, because this now really becomes an issue of not the actual terms (shart kamaal and shart sihhah) but what does each scholar intend by these terms when he uses them, so that we can do justice to his speech and not wrong anyone in the process by ascribing to him what he is free of.



Ninth, it is here that Musa Millington entered into the dark pit of Abu Fujoor and decided to join him in his characteristics of ignorance, dishonesty, lies and deception which I have already explained above. What they are doing now is trying to drown out this discussion by sending out a barrage of PDFs (in desperation) to create a smokescreen and hide the fact that the actual issue was dealt with and finished after my very first post, which ended the evil designs of the faajir kadhdhaab. This being not to their liking, they are now involved (as a team) in a desperate campaign (as is their trait) to send out a barrage of refutations, indicating their insecurity.

This now brings us to the statement of Shaykh Abdul Azeez al-Raajihee who said in his explanation of Kitaab al-Eemaan of Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim bin Sallaam (p. 61-62):

يقول السائل: خرج بعض المعاصرين بأقوال جديدة في الإيمان، وقال: إن العمل شرط كمال في الإيمان وليس شرط صحة؟

لا أعلم لهذا القول أصلا أنه يشترط الكمال كونه شرط كمال أو شرط صحة، لا أعلم لهذا القول أصلا، لا مذهب المرجئة ولا مذهب أهل السنة أهل السنة يقولون: الإيمان -جمهور أهل السنة - الإيمان قول باللسان، وتصديق بالقلب وعمل بالقلب، وعمل بالجوارح، الإيمان عمل ونية، يزيد بالطاعات وينقص بالمعاصي، فالعمل جزء من الإيمان، الإيمان مكون من هذه الأشياء، من تصديق القلب وقول اللسان، وعمل الجوارح، وعمل القلب فيكون الإيمان كم جزء؟

كل هذه الأجزاء، تصديق بالقلب، لا بد أن يقر باللسان، ينطق باللسان، ويصدق بالقلب، ويعمل بقلبه، ويعمل بجوارحه، كلها داخلة في مسمى الإيمان، اسم الإيمان يشمل هذا، والمرجئة ماذا يقولون؟ يقولون: الأعمال ليست من الإيمان ولكنها - الأعمال - دليل على الإيمان، أو هي مقتضى الإيمان، أو هي ثمرة الإيمان، المرجئة يقولون: الأعمال ما هي من الإيمان ولكن ثمرة الإيمان العمل ثمرة الإيمان أو هي دليل على الإيمان، أو هي مقتضى الإيمان أما القول بأن العمل شرط كمال أو شرط صحة لا أعلم لهذا القول أصلا، لا من قول المرجئة ولا من قول أهل السنة كيف يكون شرط كمال؟ العمل ما هو بشرط، لا شرط كمال ولا شرط صحة وإنما هو جزء من الإيمان، جزء من الإيمان فهذا القول لا أعلم له أصلا، لا يوافق مذهب المرجئة ولا مذهب جمهور أهل السنة

بل قد يقال: إنه يوافق مذهب المرجئة من جهة أنهم أخرجوا الأعمال عن مسمى الإيمان في الجملة يعني، أقرب ما يكون للمرجئة حيث إنهم أخرجوا العمل من الإيمان، فالذي يقول إن العمل شرط كمال أو شرط صحة نقول هذا مذهب المرجئة أخرجت الأعمال عن مسمى الإيمان، إما أن تقول: العمل داخل في مسمى الإيمان أو جزء من الإيمان، فإن قلت العمل ليس من الإيمان فأنت من المرجئة سواء قلت شرط كمال، أو شرط صحة، أو دليل على الإيمان، أو مقتضى الإيمان، أو ثمرة الإيمان، كل من أخرج العمل من الإيمان فهو من المرجئة واضح هذا؟

فالذي يقول: إن العمل شرط كمال أو شرط صحة أخرج العمل من الإيمان فصار من المرجئة ... وهذا القول الجديد قالوا: شرط كمال أو شرط صحة يلحق بالمرجئة؛ لأنه أخرج العمل من الإيمان نعم...

الشرط لا يتقدم ولا يتأخر الوضوء شرط في صحة الصلاة، هل الوضوء من الصلاة؟ واستقبال القبلة من الصلاة هل هي الصلاة؟ ولا شرط خارج؟ سواء داخل ولا خارج ولا متقدم ولا متأخر، فمن أخرج العمل عن مسمى الإيمان فهو من المرجئة واضح؟ لكني لا أعلم أن المرجئة يقولون إنه شرط كمال أو شرط صحة، الذي أعلمه أن المرجئة يقولون: الأعمال ثمرة الإيمان، أو دليل على الإيمان، أو مقتضى الإيمان نعم. فما أدري من أين يعني جاء هذا، لكن ومع ذلك فهو يوافق مذهب المرجئة؛ حيث إنه أخرج العمل من مسمى الإيمان نعم
Translation:


The questioner says: Some contemporaries have appeared with new sayings regarding eemaan and have said: Action is a condition for the perfection (kamaal) of eemaan and is not a condition for its validity (sihhah)?

Answer: I do not know of a basis for this saying that perfection is made a condition, that it is a condition of perfection or a condition of validity. I do not know of any basis for this saying, neither in the madhhab of the Murji'ah nor in the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah. Ahl al-Sunnah - the majority of them - that: Eemaan is speech of the tongue, tasdeeq of the heart and acting with the heart and acting with the limbs, that eemaan is action and intention, it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience. Hence action is a part (juz') of eemaan, and eemaan is made up of these things, of the tasdeeq of the heart, the speech of the tongue, the actions of the limbs, the actions of the heart, hence eeman has become how many parts?

All of these parts, the tasdeeq of the heart, it is necessary that he affirms with the tongue, that he speaks with the tongue, and makes tasdeeq with the heart and acts with his heart and acts with his limbs, all of this enters into the meaning (musammaa) of eemaan, the label (ism) of eemaan. But the Murji'ah say what? They say actions are not from eemaan, but they - the actions - are an evidence for eemaan, or they are required by eemaan, or they are the fruits of eemaan... as for the saying that action is shart kamaal (action is a condition for the perfection) or shart sihhah (condition for the validity, correctness), then I do not know of any basis for this saying, neither from the saying of the Murji'ah and nor from the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah. How can it be shart kamaal? Action is not a condition, neither shart kamaal and nor shart sihhah, rather it is a part (juz') of eemaan, a part of eemaan, so this saying I do not know of any basis for it, it neither agrees with the madhhab of the Murji'ah, and nor with the madhhab of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah.

Rather, it could be said: That it agrees with the madhhab of the Murji'ah from the angle that they expelled actions from the essence (musammaa) of eemaan in general, meaning, that as close as it can get to the Murji'ah, in that they expelled action from eemaan. So the one who says action is shart kamaal or shart sihhah, we say, this is the madhhab of the Murji'ah, you have expelled actions from the essence of eemaan. Either you say, "Action enters into the musammaa of eemaan" or is "a part of eemaan". If you say action is not from eemaan, then you are from the Murji'ah irrespective of whether you said shart kamaal or shart sihhah, or that it is an evidence for eemaan, or required by eemaan, or a fruit of eemaan. Everyone who expels action from eemaan then he is from the Murji'ah, is this clear?

So the one who says: Action is a condition of perfection (shart kamaal) or a condition of validity (shart sihhah), he has expelled action from eemaan and has thus become from the Murji'ah ... so this new saying, they said: Shart kamaal or shart sihhah, he is to be put alongside the Murji'ah because he expelled action from eemaan. Yes.

The condition (shart) does not advance (forward) or lag (behind). The wudhu is shart sihhah for the prayer, is wudhoo from the prayer? And is facing the qiblah is it the prayer itself? Or (is it no) a condition outside of the prayer? Irrespective of it being inside or outside or preceding or coming after, whoever expelled action from the essence of eemaan, then he is from the Murji'ah, is that clear? However, I do not know that the Murji'ah say that it is shart kamaal or shart sihhah, that which I know is that the Murji'ah say that actions are a fruit of eemaan, or an evidence for eemaan, or a requirement of eemaan (without it being from eemaan), yes. So I do not know where they got this from, however, alongside that, it agrees with the madhhab of the Murj'ah in that he expels action from the essence (musammaa) of eemaan. Yes.NOTE: If you refer back to the whole tape (transcript is also available) you will see the questioner trying to argue that those who say action is shart sihhah for eemaan are actually including it within eemaan and the Shaykh rejects this and says, "No, it is outside of eemaan" and the Shaykh does not accept this argument at all and continues to pass the judgement that his saying is the saying of the Murjii'ah of expelling actions from eemaan!

From the above quote we can take some benefits for the purposes of this whole discussion and from which we can see that Musa Millington is someone who has shallow knowledge and is not willing to acknowledge that this issue is more sophisticated than his level of understanding. These are some points that we can benefit from this quote of Shaykh al-Raajihee:

1. That this is not as simple as just gathering and compiling a few statements of some scholars who find fault with the use of the term "actions are shart kamaal", and claim that tafseel must be made. If you define shart with the example of wudhoo to make the point that just by using the word shart you expel actions from eemaan (as Musa did) then you fall into inconsistency and invalidate the very tafseel you claimed needed to be made in the first place regarding Ibn Hajar's generalization! You can't say, "Hey, look at the scholars, they made tafseel of the statement of Ibn Hajar, which is what you should have done" and then come along and explain that using the word shart means you have expelled actions from eemaan by giving the example of wudhoo being a shart for the prayer. This undermines the very tafseel you are insisting had to be made and accepted in the first place.

2. Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Raajihee says that he does not know the saying that action is shart kamaal or shart sihhah to be from the saying of the Murji'ah and this is indeed the case. There is no faction of the Murji'ah who ever said this and these terms are not reported in any of the early books of the Salaf as far as I know. Rather the first to use these terms as I indicated in my post is Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and I said this because I remember reading it somewhere in one of the books a long while back. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's intent by these terms was to contrast the madhhab of the Salaf from the madhhab of the Mu'tazilah by indicating that the abandonment of the afraad of the a'maal does not make one a disbeliever, except that he made an error in generalizing along the lines of what has already been clarified. Ibn Hajar himself does not expel actions from the musammaa of eemaan, rather he supported and aided the position of the Salaf in this and in eemaan increasing and decreasing. Further, those who clarified the generalization in Ibn Hajar's words themselves affirmed and used the words "shart sihhah" and "shart kamaal" as has preceded. Hence, we have to be careful when we start throwing around the statement of the scholars without understanding the true complexities and subtleties of this subject, because we may start doing injustice to certain other scholars, and this largely comes down to what does a particular scholar intend or mean by the use of these phrases.

3. Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Raajihee is operating upon the meaning of the word shart in the language (that which is external to a thing and without which the thing itself cannot exist) and is saying that anyone who uses these terms, whether shart sihhah or shart kamaal has essentially expelled action from eemaan and is to be thrown with the Murji'ah. For your information, Shaykh Abdullaah al-Ghudayaan says that action is shart sihhah for eemaan and Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalee says action is shart sihhah for eemaan. This is what I am saying to Musa Millington. If you are going to start speaking about the word shart by using the example of wudhoo and the prayer, then you are bound with one of two things:

a) Be consistent and accuse every scholar who uses the term shart sihhah to either the whole of action or to just a part of it (like the prayer) of expelling action from eemaan and thereby agreeing with the Murji'ah and being from them. And hence, saying that Ibn Hajr's generalization needed to be clarified becomes absolutely meaningless if you are going to affirm the tafseel of those scholars who said some actions are shart kamaal and some actions are shart sihhah. You have not escaped the very problem you were claiming to correct, because even with this tafseel, you still have not escaped Irjaa'!

b) Or come to your senses and acknowledge what I am saying which is that we have to really look at the intent of each Scholar who is using these terms and phrases (shart kamaal and shart sihhah), whether that be Ibn Hajar, or al-Albani, or Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalee or Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghudayaan (see below), and we have to be mature and reasonable when we look at the criticisms of other scholars (like Ibn Baz and al-Fawzan) of these terms, whilst we can agree that these are ambiguous terms that create ambiguity and should be avoided as the best measure. But since the scholars have used them and still use them, then we have to be reasonable and mature by investigating what does each scholar intend by them and be careful in applying the rulings of other scholars to the statements of others. This is alongside our agreement that an expression can still be deemed erroneous due to its generalization and ambiguity, even if the intent behind it might be sound.

Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalee said in his al-Ajwibah al-Sadeedah (1424H, Cairo, 6/318):

فهم لم يفرقوا بين جنس العمل - والذي يعد شرطا في صحة الإيمان عند أهل السنة - و بين آحاد العمل وأفراده والذي يعد تاركه غير مستكمل الإيمان
So they (the Murji'ah) did not differentiate between jins al-amal (action in principle, in its genus) - and which is considered a condition for the validity of eemaan (shart fi sihhat il-eemaan) with Ahl al-Sunnah - and between the individual elements and instances of action the abandoner of which is not perfect in eemaan.Shaykh Abdullaah al-Ghudayan also has the following statement in what is related from him (http://www.albaidha.net/vb/showpost.php?p=86060&postcount=2):

الإيمان قول وعمل واعتقاد والعمل شرط فى صحة الإيمان، والمرجئة لايجعلون العمل شرطاً فى صحة الإيمان
Eemaan is speech, action and belief and action is condition for the validity of eemaan, and the Murji'ah do not make action a condition for the validity of eemaan.Applying the speech of Shaykh al-Raajihee means that Shaykh Zayd and Shaykh Abdullah have expelled action from eemaan and have agree with the Murji'ah! But is this what they really intend? Certainly not! They are using the word shart here with other than its well-known meaning. Just like Ibn Hajar and al-Albani when they say that "actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan" they do not mean that actions are outside of eemaan and its reality. No, they actually mean to refute the Mu'tazilah, and since they hold that abandoning prayer does not invalidate eemaan, then each and every individual action to them is "shart kamaal" meaning that if it is abandoned individually, it does not make a person a kaafir and nullify eemaan, rather it makes his eemaan deficient, unlike what the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij say! This is their intent.

So just like I would not apply the judgement of Shaykh al-Raajihee against Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalee and Shaykh Abdullaah al-Ghudayaan and their statements, then likewise, not every criticism of every other Shaykh that "whoever says that actions are shart kamaal in eemaan is a Murji" or has "agreed with the Murji'ah" or "has expelled actions from eemaan", I am not going to affirm that judgement, until I verify the actual intent of the one using these ambiguous terms. I will simply say the phrase is ambiguous and can be criticised from the angle of it being employed (instead of the correct shar'iyy terms) but the intent of the scholar is clear, and this is what I hold regarding the statements of Shaykh al-Albani and Ibn Hajar, alongside accepting the observation that the words should not really be used and in the circumstances create ambiguity. Likewise, I will not hold that Shaykh Zayd and Shaykh Abdullah or any other scholar who says action is "shart sihhah" for eemaan has expelled action from eemaan and has agreed with the Murji'ah, because that is clearly not the intent of the Shaykh. So because of the ambiguity in these matters one has to be reasonable and careful.

4. This comes back to what I am saying that we find some complexity regarding these terms and even amongst the Scholars there are differences regarding their usage. So if you want to start playing this game like Musa wants it to be played - then be consistent. If you are going to give the example of wudhu being a shart for the prayer, and therefore outside of the prayer, then likewise say that anyone who says the prayer is shart sihhah has expelled the prayer from the essence and reality of eemaan. And likewise anyone who says that action (in its genus) is shart sihhah for eemaan, then say likewise about him that he has expelled actions from eemaan just by using this phrase and has agreed with the Murji'ah. And upon this, it is contradictory to claim that leaving Ibn Hajar's generalization can lead to Irjaa' yet making tafseel of that generalization using the very same terms (shart kamal and shart sihhah) is not Irjaa'! That's blatant contradiction!

Don't play games and instead of using statements of only some of the scholars in a matter that is complex and subtle, acknowledge that not everyone who says "actions (a'maal in their afraad) are from the perfection of eemaan" is actually in error or agrees with the Murji'ah in terms of the meaning he intends (just like not everyone who says that action is from the sihhah (validity) of eemaan has agreed with the Murji'ah). As for those from the contemporaries who say that actions are not a pillar of eemaan or not from the essence of eemaan (like al-Kawtharee and the Maturidiyyah as I covered in an earlier post in this thread) and upon this says that "actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan", this is the one whom we declare to be upon misguidance and error and these are the Murji'ah who have emerged in our time and who are using the statement "actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan" which is actually found in some of the books of the Maturidis in order to support their doctrine.

And thus the issue becomes like this: These are clearly ambiguous terms (shart kamaal, shart sihhah), the Ahl al-Bid'ah may use them for their falsehood whilst some from Ahl al-Sunnah may use them to support a view that is within the confines of Ahl al-Sunnah (such as what Ibn Hajar and al-Albani did in refuting the Mu'tazilah and explaining that the afraad of the a'maal, their abandonment does not invalidate eemaan, whilst they affirm the rukniyyah of amal in it's genus in opposition to the Murji'ah), and we simply say that there is ambiguity in their speech and make the relevant clarification, but the mere use of such terms does not mean that a person is supporting, outlining or propagating the doctrine of the Murji'ah, despite the ambiguity in the wording. We have to verify the intent of the Scholar using these terms, especially when we know that they affirrm the juzz'iyyah and rukniyyah of eemaan and affirm that eemaan increases and decreases and refute the Murji'ah and that their use of these terms is within the context of refuting the Mu'tazilah. This is where we have to be careful so that we do not accuse scholars of that which they are free of. The error Ibn Hajar made is to say the Mu'tazilah treat all individual actions to be shart sihhah and the Salaf made all actions to be shart kamaal, which is not correct because the Mut'azilah do not make takfir through the abandonment of every action (only those whose abandonment amounts to major sin) and as for the Ahl al-Sunnah, then they have the view that the one who abandons prayer has invalidated eemaan (which makes some of the action to be shart sihhah). So whilst the wording is ambiguous (using the terms shart kamaal, shart sihhah), the meaning intended by Ibn Hajar is sound with the exception of a generalization which is incorrect, and the same is said of Shaykh al-Albani (upon the view they hold that abandoning prayer is no major kufr). This is because they are speaking in the context of refuting the bidah of the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij of making takfir of the sinners. And as for what Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhali and Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghudayan, they intend that amal (action), in its genus, in principle, is a pillar of eemaan and cannot be valid without it, they do not mean that action is outside of eemaan and not from its musammaa (essence). This is because they are speaking in the context of refuting the bidah of the Murji'ah that inward belief does not necessitate (make laazim) outward action. Yet both of these sayings have been criticized and declared as Irjaa by other scholars.

5. All of this is completely over the head of Musa Millington and Abu Fujoor as is very clear. Further, they fail to acknowledge the truth that is with their opponent, despite the fact that their opponent (myself) acknowledged the part which was truth right at the very beginning of this whole matter in the first post in this thread and which was clarified therein. This is gross injustice and oppression.

And all praise is due to Allaah, and salat and salaam be upon the Messenger, his family and companions.

[Abu.Ubayd.Zayd.Gripshi]

In his explanation of the 34th hadith in an-Nawawi's al-Arba'in, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin said:


http://www.themadkhalis.com/md/assets/images/uthaymin-shart-sihhah.gif

This translates as:


And there is no need for us to say what is circulating now, between the youth and the students of knowledge: Are actions from the perfection of eemaan or from the validity of eemaan? There is no need for this question, meaning that a 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.

As for trying to contend and refute and make disputation, such that whoever opposes you, you say this one is a Murji' and whoever agrees with you, you are pleased with him, and if he adds, you say this one is from the Khawaarij, then this is not correct.

For this reason, my counsel to the youth and students of knowledge is that you leave investigation of this matter, and that we say: What Allaah, the Exalted and His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) have made a condition for the validity of eemaan and its remaining, then it is condition, and whatever has not [been made a condition], then no, [and through this] we settle the matter.Source: http://www.themadkhalis.com/md/articles/knggw-shaykh-al-albani-shaykh-ibn-uthaymin-shart-kamal-and-shart-sihhah-irjaa-and-the-hawaalian-menace.cfm

[Abu.Iyaad]

JazaakAllaahu khayran akh Abu Ubayd, for posting this statement of Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah), I myself translated this speech over a year and a half ago, just as I have translated other material related to this very matter over the years and w.hich in fact I clarified over a decade ago in detail in numerous articles in that these terms shart sihhah and shart kamaal are ambiguous terms and we investigate the intent of those who use them, whilst acknowledging they are ambiguous and should be avoided.

Great Insight From and the Realities Explained by Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel

Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab al-Aqeel (hafidhahullaah) stated in a short risaalah of his (مسألة العذر بالجهل إنما تورد لتفريق أهل السنة والله الذي لا اله غيره) discussing the issue of al-udhru bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance) and the reasons for the controversy in this particular matter, he states at the end of the risaalah:

فهذا ملخص هذه المسألة , فهذه المسألة لها نظائر, مثل : الأعمال شرط كمال أو شرط صحة ؟ هذه أختها, لا نقول شرط كمال ولا شرط صحة, نقول الأعمال من الإيمان ,لكن لا نشدد على سلفي قال شرط كمال أو شرط صحة ,فهذا له سلف وهذا له سلف. أقول هذه المسألة لها نظائر لأنها إنما تورد لتفريق أهل السنة والله الذي لا اله غير, العذر بالجهل والأعمال شرط كمال أو شرط صحة ونحوها من المسائل فإنما تورد لا لشيء إلا ليفرقوا بين السلفيين ,وفعلا فرقوا استطاعوا أن يضربوا السلفيين بعضهم ببعض بقوة, حتى إلى التبديع بل إلى التكفير .
This is a summary of this issue (of the excuse of ignorance), and this issue has equivalent issues (that are like it) for example, "actions are a condition for perfection (kamaal) or a condition for validity (sihhah)", this (issue) is a sister-issue (to the issue of the excuse of ignorance). We do not say "shart kamaal" nor do we say "shart sihhah", we say "actions are from eemaan". However we do not show severity upon a Salafi who says, "shart kamaal" or "shart sihhah." For this one (in saying shart kamaal) has a salaf (a precedence) and that one (in saying shart sihhah) also has a salaf (a precedence). I say that this matter (of the excuse of ignorance) has other equivalent issues, because they are propagated in order to bring about separation between Ahl al-Sunnah, and by Allaah besides whom there is none worthy of worship besides Him, al-udhru bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance) and al-a'maal shart kamaal or shart sihhah (actions being a condition for the perfection or validity [of eemaan]) and what is like them from the issues, then verily they are propagated for no reason except to split the Salafis. And in practically, they have split them. They tried to strike the Salafis, some of them against others, with strength, until reaching tabdee' (declaring as innovators), rather reaching takfir...This has to be one of the most precious statements and there are many important implications and lessons from it. I think to seal this thread with these lessons and benefits would be a nice way to expose these people such as Abu Fujoor and Musa Millington who are practically following the way of the Haddaadiyyah in stoking up certain issues in order to malign and attack the Salafi callers because of personal agendas, despite those Salafis being free and innocent of the accusations made against them.

POINT 1: The issue of shart kamaal and shart sihhah is largely an issue of what a person intends by the use of these terms and the sayings of the scholars vary regarding it. On account of the complexity of this issue and the fact that there can be found diversity in the sayings of the scholars, the Haddaadiyyah, and those who follow their traits and characteristics employ this issue in order harm and split the Salafis and to attack the Scholars and the Callers and accuse them of what they are free and innocent of. Shaykh Rabee has written numerous times about this (refer to his statement quoted in post no.7 (chttp://www.salafitalk.com/threads/977#post1822) in this thread, towards the end).

POINT 2: I will now elaborate upon the nature of the difference and explain the various usages and positions. We can do this very effectively by starting this off with a quote fromm Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen who said (in his Sharh al-Arba'een al-Nawawiyyah, already cited previously):


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.Upon this, there are some scholars for whom the evidence is not established that abandoning the prayer invalidates eemaan. This is a fiqh issue and is a difference of opinion. Built upon this, to these scholars the prayer, fasting, zakah, hajj (so long as their obligation is affirmed) and all the other actions individually, if they are abandoned, do not cause eemaan to be invalidated (even though it is decreased). These scholars say that the actions (individually) therefore are a "shart kamaal lil-eemaan" (condition for the perfection of eemaan) and their intent is two-fold: a) To show that nothing of the individually commanded righteous actions invalidate eemaan if iit is abandoned and b) to oppose the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij who say eemaan has been invalidated by the abandonment of individually commanded actions. If this is what they intend, then to say "actions are shart kamaal" is acceptable upon what they intend by the phrase when these same scholars affirm that a) actions are from the essence of eemaan, b) that eemaan is belief speech and action and c) eemaan increases and decreases and d) refute the Murji'ah for expelling actions from eemaan.

And those who criticize this saying do so on the basis that this generalization is incorrect because of the issue of prayer whose abandonment they consider to be kufr (and they may include actions which require tark [abandonment] such as abandoning mocking the religion, and not committing shirk and etc.)

It is vital to note that the entire discussion here is centered around a'maal (actions) individually, as in the afraad (individual instances) of the actions making up eemaan. It is not centered around the genus of action (meaning, action in principle).

Built upon this, naturally we will see that there will be two views:

a) Those Scholars who hold abandoning prayer does not invalidate eemaan. Thus, they will say actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan.

b) Those Scholars who hold abandoning prayer invalidates eemaan. They will say not all actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan, rather some are a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan. They may criticize the first group for making a generalization that is inaccurate.

In reality, the only thing that separates these two groups is their opinion on the abandonment of the prayer, not the actual issue of employing and using these terms. From here we understand the nature of the criticism on the speech of Ibn Hajar where he said:


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 completenessThe criticism is that this is not accurate because from Ahl al-Sunnah are those who say prayer invalidates eemaan and likewise the Mu'tazilah do not invalidate eemaan on the basis of every action, but on those actions whose abandonment necessitates major sin. The mistake here is an incorrect generalization due to failing to note that a) Ahl al-Sunnah differ on the issue of the prayer, hence the Salaf are not agreed that all actions are shart kamaal and b) the Mu'tazilah do not invalidate eemaan on account of abandonment of every action (because there are some which are mustahabb for example).

Putting this generalization to one side, all of the Scholars here in the first two groups are speaking of the individual actions using the terms "shart kamaal" and are speaking in the context of refuting and opposing the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij and contrasting the position of Ahl al-Sunnah with that of those went to one extreme in the topic of eemaan by expelling Muslims from the religion because they left off something of the individual branches of the outward eeman.

All of this is in stark contrast to the Murji'ah (from the Maturidiyyah who follow the Murji'at al-Fuquhaa) who say eemaan is only tasdeeq (inward belief) and iqraar (on the tongue) and that outward actions are not a part of or a pillar of eemaan. Upon this baatil belief, they say that actions are therefore only a fruit, or an evidence for, or completion of eemaan (without actually being from it) and some of them from the contemporaries use the expression "shart kamaal".

It is vital to understand here that these scholars who (use the term shart kamaal) are speaking in the context of the individual actions (a'maal) after affirming the rukniyyah and juz''iyyah of amal in its genus (in principle) and they are contrasting the aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah with that of the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij as it pertains to when and on account of what a person leaves Islaam, when he leaves some of the individual branches of eemaan.

So far we have dealt with two groups and two positions:

There is another group who says: "Action (al-amal) is a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan" (shart sihhah lil-eemaan), and as I explained above, this is the view of Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalee and Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghudayaan (and others). They say that action is a condition of the validity (sihhah) of eemaan and that this saying is the view of Ahl al-Sunnah and what they really mean here is that action is a rukn (pillar) and juz'' (part) of eemaan, and they are speaking here of the genus of action (as in, action in principle). They also say that anyone who says "action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan" is a Murji' and upon Irjaa' and they are speaking here of anyone who does not affirm that action is a rukn or juz'' (in its genus).

This applies in reality to the Maturidiyyah, Murji'at al-Fuquhaa who are upon this (they deny action is from eemaan in their misguided attempt to flee from the saying of the Khawaarij and Mu'tazilah) and not to those from Ahl al-Sunnah who hold that the prayer does not invalidate eemaan and thus all individual actions are "a condition for the perfection of eemaan" in the sense that if any particular individual outward branch of eeman is abandoned, it would not expel a person from eemaan totally.

So what do we have so far?

a) Those who say all actions (individually) are a condition for the perfection of eemaan (they are refuting the Mut'azilah and Khawaarij).

b) Those who say that some actions are shart sihhah and some action are shart kamaal (because they hold that abandoning prayer invalidates eemaan) and they are also clarifying the view of Ahl al-Sunnah from that of the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij. The only difference between them and the first group is that they make the prayer shart sihhah.

c) Those who say that action (in its genus) is a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan and that any other saying is Irjaa'. They are refuting the Murji'ah who deny the rukniyyah and juz'iyyah of eeman.

But then we have another group of Scholars:

d) Those who hold that anyone who says action is a condition for the perfection (kamaal) or validity (sihhah) has expelled actions from eemaan and is from the Murji'ah or has agreed with the Murji'ah (irrespective of whether he says actions are shart kamaal or actions are shart sihhah). Also, that whoever says action is from eemaan and then says "shart kamaal" or "shart sihhah" falls into contradiction. This is found with Shaykh Abd al-Azeez al-Raajihee and Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan.

POINT 3: From all of this we gather therefore, that there is some ambiguity in all of this and so the matter is not as simple and straightforward and is exactly as Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel has pointed out and we have to investigate and see what is the intent behind the usage of these words rather than fixate on the terms themselves and start accusing others of that which they are free of based upon these terms (even if we accept that the expresssion itself can be considered erroneous, despite a correct meaning being intended).

Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul said in Sharh Sifat al-Salah lil-Shaykh al-Albani (see here (http://www.sahab.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=124179))

والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها؛فإن أراد من قال: الأعمال شرط كمال، أن التقصير في العمل سبب في نقص الإيمان، فهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية، وقد ينقص حتى يزول إذا ترك العمل بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع، فهذا معنى قول أهل السنة والجماعة، ولكن الخطأ في العبارة!وإن أراد أن الإيمان يثبت في أصله بغير عمل، وأن العمل ليس من حقيقة الإيمان، فهذا قول المرجئة
And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "Actions are shart kamaal" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression. And if he intended that eemaan can be established in its foundation (asl) without any action, and that action is not from the reality of eemaan, then this is the sayig of the Murji'ah.Shaykh Rabee's Exposition of the Haddaadiyyah's Use of These Issues to Create Fitnah Amongst the Salafis

Shaykh Rabee' has numerous articles (http://rabee.net) in refutation of Falih al-Harbee and Fawzee al-Bahrainee who were using the statements of some of the Scholars in order to lay the accusation of Irjaa' against other scholars, from them Shaykh Ibn Baaz, and Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Rabee' himself. This is not far off from what Abu Fujoor, the faajir kadhdhab has attempted with me, and he is now supported in this disgrace by Musa Millington and the team that is working together for this purpose, revealing that they have Haddaadi traits.

As for Faalih al-Harbee and Fawzee al-Bahrainee, they were employing the position of some of the scholars that "action is shart sihhah for eemaan" to ascribe Irjaa' to anyone who did not use this statement, but rather who said that some actions are shart kamaal and some are shart sihhah or who said that actions (individually) are shart kamaal as is the view of Shaykh al-Albaani. Shaykh Rabee' points out that these Haddaadis employed this issue to attack himself (by blatantly lying upon Shaykh Rabee) and also Shaykhs Ibn Baz and al-Albani (who employed the term of shart kamaal) and that they were also attempting to attack Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen for the same reasons. You can read about some of that here (http://rabee.net/show_book.aspx?pid=3&bid=260&gid=0) and in numerous other articles the Shaykh has written.

This helps us to put into context the activities of Abu Fujoor, the faajir kadhdhaab and those who are supporting this immature child in his disgraceful oppression and mischief, from them Musa Millington, and there are also hidden hands who are helping to write all these PDF refutations (in desperation) after their initial plot failed miserably and was exposed.

Exposing the Deception, Dishonesty, Ignorance and Pretence of Abu Fujoor, Musa Millington and Their Following of the Ways of the Haddaadiyyah

As Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab al-Aqeel pointed out at the beginning, the issue of shart kamaal and shart sihhah is one of those issues which are employed to attack Salafis and to create fitnah and separation, despite the fact that this is not a matter where severity is shown for the very reasons that should now become clear from what I have explained and which should have been clear from whatever I have explained in this thread numerous times:

Which is that all these expressions and terms are used by the scholars to intend different things: 1) at one time intending opposition to the Mu'tazilah, 2) at another time intending opposition to the Murji'ah, 3) at one time intending the genus of action and 4) at another time intending actions in their afraad (individual instances) and 5) at another time intending to show the talaazum (binding link) between the inward and outward and 6) at another time intending to show that the absence of a part of eemaan does not necessitate the disappearance of all of it. For that reason, one has to be careful in how he uses the critiques of some scholars against the statements of others, so as not to wrong or oppress anyone (alongside our agreement that expressions in themselves can be judged to be erroneous and problematic, and thus best avoided).

Note: There are those who grasp, fathom and understand this crucial matter and there are those who frrom their ignorance do not, and as a result they create mischief and fall into oppression and injustice with their ta'aalum (fake scholarship). Abu Fujoor and Musa Millington and others are upon this way in using such an issue to create fitnah and they have a history of using these types of issues. In the past they used the issue of donation boxes in mosques, and the use of video for purposes of da'wah, and walhamdulillaah, they were exposed for that too.

This issue of eemaan has been one of the grazing pastures of the Haddaadiyyah and this is why they picked on this issue because it is one where you can quite easily pick out some statements of some of the Scholars which contains criticism and make it appear that someone is promoting misguidance. And as the issue is complex and requires much study, the audience who does not have time for that will believe and take everything at face value as it has been spread. So for example, from what has preceded in this thread, it is very possible for a person to take the statement of Shaykh al-Raajihee and that of Shaykh al-Fawzaan and start accusing those scholars who said "action is shart sihhah for eemaan" of expelling actions from eemaan and being from the Murji'ah and opposing the usool of Ahl al-Sunnah, just like you can also accuse those who use both the terms shart kamal and shart sihhah, even if they made tafseel (saying some actions are shart sihhah and some are shart kamaal) of expelling actions from eemaan. To monopolize on the nature of this subject was the intent of Abu Fujoor al-Kadhdhaab, but walhamdulillaah it failed and was exposed quickly.

So what happened as has preceded is that Abu Fujoor is an insecure child, his adaalah has been battered and killed and the only thing left is a corpse that keeps coming back every time its adaalah is slaughtered and diminished each time, the aim each time being "let me throw things at the Salafi callers to undermine them so that I can look good and polish up my own bruised image" alongside his knowledge that the generality of the Salafis and even some of those who associated with him know that he is a kadhdhaab, affaak (great slandering liar), untrustworthy and unreliable in what he narrates, arrogant in accepting his mistakes and iniquities and what he did with our brother Abdulilah Lahmami (http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=10858) is the perfect example of that.

When he sent out his 8 page PDF on the 6th of March, as I explained in the first post (http://www.salafitalk.com/threads/977#post1782) (7th March) in this thread, he deliberately concealed the rest of the two page chapter in order to allow him to create his mischief. In that two-page chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah, I established that a) action is from eemaan, b) that the legislative meaning of eemaan with the Salaf is belief, speech and action and c) that eemaan increases and decreases in opposition to the view of the groups of kalaam.

In my first post in refutation of the deception of Abu Fujoor I addressed everything there was to address: a) the linguistic definition of eemaan given by Ibn Hajar, b) the generalization made by Ibn Hajar and c) the use of the phrase "actions are shart kamaal". I addressed all these three issues in my very first post and the matter was finished, clarified and done walhamdulillaah, and thus there was nothing left, the matter was dead.

Then Musa Milllington came along to give support to his associate who had been exposed and after misunderstanding the clear intent behind one of my paragraphs, he raised the issue of the word shart (condition) and said that this needs to be clarified further (despite the fact that I'd already clarified it in my first post from the citations from Muhammad Ishaq Kandu's Masters thesis). Musa said:


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. Right here, Musa Millington underrmined what Abu Fujoor wrote and put a question mark over the very quotes Abu Fujoor brought (in his 8 page PDF) from the scholars who made tafseel of the speech of Ibn Hajar by affirming and using the very same terms (shart kamaal and shart sihhah). This is because, if you are going to use the example of wudhoo to explain the word shart (condition), and wudhoo is shart sihhah and is outside of the prayer, it means that:

a) despite attempting to criticize me on account of Ibn Hajar's statement (and that's after deliberately concealing the other content I included in the chapter which establishes the position of the Salaf),

b) and slandering me by claiming I propagated the aqeedah of the Asharis and

c) and demanding that tafseel be made of Ibn Hajar's speech,

All you have achieved is to criticize what you deem to be Irjaa' or hinting at Irjaa' (i.e. the statement of Ibn Hajar) with statements and clarifications which are also Irjaa' (upon Millington's explanation of the word shart). Because anyone who says "prayer is a shart sihhah for eemaan" then he has expelled prayer from eemaan, just like wudhoo is shart sihhah for prayer and is outside of prayer, and not from it. Thus it becomes meaningless to take an issue with the speech of Ibn Hajr which made Abu Fujoor's initial so-called clarification pointless and meaningless. They clearly had not thought this thing out properly. This proved to me that these people do not really grasp this issue and do not understand its intricacies and are being inconsistent without even realising it, and since their intention is not good and wholesome, they are tripping up.

The crucial point I made all along was this:


Either be consistent and accuse every scholar who uses the term shart sihhah to either the whole of action or to just a part of it (like the prayer) of expelling action from eemaan and thereby agreeing with the Murji'ah and being from them. As a result of which saying that Ibn Hajr's generalization needed to be clarified becomes absolutely meaningless if you are going to affirm the tafseel of those scholars who said some actions are shart kamaal and some actions are shart sihhah. You have not escaped the very problem you were claiming to correct, because even with this tafseel, you still have not escaped Irjaa'!
Or come to your senses and acknowledge what I am saying which is that we have to really look at the intent of each Scholar who is using these terms and phrases and we have to be mature and reasonable when we look at the criticisms of other scholars (like Ibn Baz and al-Fawzan) of these terms, and we have to be reasonable and mature by investigating what does each scholar intend by them and be careful in applying the rulings of other scholars to the statements of others and not start throwing the accusations of Irjaa' with such ease because you will end up slandering someone.

Musa Millington's Twisting of the Realities and Attempt to Cover Himself

When I wrote on this matter in detail in post no 4 (http://www.salafitalk.com/threads/977#post1801) (10th March) and explained this important issue, it did not please Musa Millington (in fact I question whether he even understood it). A day later (11th March) he released his 12-page refutation upon me. In this 12-page PDF he brought quotes from Shaykh Rabee' and Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan who made the very point that I was making and which I explained a day earlier - that it is wrong to use the term shart sihhah, that this is a contradiction, and that it cannot be said that actions are either a condition from the conditions of sihhah or a condition from the conditions of kamaal. Because Musa had messed up and showed his inconsistency and not realising the implications of what he wrote regarding the example of wudhoo being shart sihhah, he tried to cover this up by bringing the statements from these Shaykhs in his response to me which essentially outline the very point I made to him and which everyone can read for themselves in post no 4 (http://www.salafitalk.com/threads/977#post1801) and which I repeated again and again. Through that 12-page PDF he tried to pretend to make the very point that I was explaining to him all along and twist the tables and make it look as if I was the one who was not clarifying things! This what I wrote in that post on 10th March when I pointed out the confusion in his mind:


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...This was the message I explained again and again before Musa Millington tried to do his deceptive cover up thereafter. In his 12 page PDF response to me (11th March), Musa Millington turned the realities around, used empty doublespeak and deception to cover himself which I exposed in detail in post no 7 (http://www.salafitalk.com/threads/977#post1822), so one can refer to it to see the reality of his deception and dishonesty.

A team of them are now working to undermine me, and accuse me of opposing the usool and so on. All of these activities are desperate attempts to hide their tracks and their evil agenda, to cover their own confusion, lack of consistency, and lack of understanding in this mattter and to deceive the people about the nature of their activities and the true and real goals behind them. Alhamdulillaah, the insight in the statement of Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel exposes these individuals for what they are:


This is a summary of this issue (of the excuse of ignorance), and this issue has equivalent issues (that are like it) for example, "actions are a condition for perfection (kamaal) or a condition for validity (sihhah)", this (issue) is a sister-issue (to the issue of the excuse of ignorance). We do not say "shart kamaal" nor do we say "shart sihhah", we say "actions are from eemaan". However we do not show severity upon a Salafi who says, "shart kamaal" or "shart sihhah." For this one (in saying shart kamaal) has a salaf (a precedence) and that one (in saying shart sihhah) also has a salaf (a precedence). I say that this matter (of the excuse of ignorance) has other equivalent issues, because they are propagated in order to bring about separation between Ahl al-Sunnah, and by Allaah besides whom there is none worthy of worship besides Him, al-udhru bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance) and al-a'maal shart kamaal or shart sihhah (actions being a condition of the perfection or validity [of eemaan]) and what is like them from the issues, then verily they are propagated for no reason except to split the Salafis. Their intent all along was to use this issue for these objectives, to undermine, attack and falsely slander others on account of personal agendas. May Allaah guide their souls and make them realize that all these efforts to save face will prove fruitless because they evidently lack sincerity. That is because whatever needed clarifying was already done in the first post in this thread, but that did not satisfy or please them.

And all praise is due to Allaah, may the salat and salam be upon the Messenger, his family and companionns.

[Abu.Iyaad]

Based upon the previous post in this thread, which is founded upon the statements of two Shaykhs, Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel and Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul, Musa Millington in his latest PDF desperation is claiming that I am using the bid'ah of mujmal and mufassal of al-Ma'ribee in the issue of Ibn Hajar's statement! In reality, he is accusing not me, but Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul of this. In this post I will address this matter in defence of Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul.

Here is the statement of Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul who said in Sharh Sifat al-Salah lil-Shaykh al-Albani, and he is clarifying the intent of Shaykh al-Albani on this very point (regarding the statement that actions are shart kamaal for eeman):

والذي يظهر من سياق كلامه رحمه الله أنه إنما يريد أن التقصير في الأعمال الصالحة لا يبطل الإيمان، فهو يريد بهذه العبارة الرد على الذين يشترطون لصحة الإيمان ألاَّ يعمل معصية، وألاَّ يقع صاحبه في تقصير، لا أنه يريد أن الإيمان يثبت بدون عمل أصلاً ... والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها؛ فإن أراد من قال: الأعمال شرط كمال، أن التقصير في العمل سبب في نقص الإيمان، فهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية، وقد ينقص حتى يزول إذا ترك العمل بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع، فهذا معنى قول أهل السنة والجماعة، ولكن الخطأ في العبارة! وإن أراد أن الإيمان يثبت في أصله بغير عمل، وأن العمل ليس من حقيقة الإيمان، فهذا قول المرجئة

ومن قال: الأعمال شرط في صحة الإيمان، إذا كان مراده أن أصل الإيمان لا يثبت إلا بعمل، فلا إيمان بلا عمل، ومن قصر في العمل أنقص من إيمانه، فإذا ترك العمل الصالح بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع ذهب إيمانه؛ فإن هذا هو قول أهل السنة و الجماعة. إذ الظاهر والباطن متلازمان! فالأعمال شرط في صحة ثبوت الإيمان، وهي شرط في كمال الإيمان بعد ثبوته!وإن أراد أن من أنقص العمل ذهب إيمانه، لأن الإيمان إذا نقص بعضه، ذهب كله، فلا يصح إيمان مع نقص العمل، فهذا قول الخوارج
And that which is apparent from the context of his speech (rahimahullaah) is that he intends that falling short in the righteous actions does not invalidate eemaan. For he intends by this expression refutation of those who specify as a condition for eemaan that he not fall into disobedience (sin), and that a person (of eemaan) not fall into deficiency, not that he intends that eemaan can be established with any action fundamentally... And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "Actions are shart kamaal (for eemaan)" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression. And if he intended that eemaan can be established in its foundation (asl) without any action, and that action is not from the reality of eemaan, then this is the saying of the Murji'ah.

And whoever said "actions are a condition for the validity of eemaan", if his intent is that the foundation (asl) of eemaan cannot be established without action, and thus there is no eemaan without action, and that whoever fell short in action has diminished something from his eemaan. And when he abandons all of the righteous actions in their entirety despite having the ability and there being nothing to prevent him, that his eemaan goes, then this is the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah. Since the outward and inward are mutually bound together! Hence, the actions [as a genus] are a condition for the validity in the (initial) establishment of eemaan, and they are a condition for the perfection of eemaan after its (initial) establishment! But if he means that whoever diminishes anything of action, then his eemaan will go (altogether) because when something of eemaan goes, all of it goes, and thus no eemaan can be valid alongside the decrease in action, then this is the saying of the Khawaarij.This statement of Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul which I cited in the previous post in this thread contains the very same as I what I have been outlining all along in this thread with respect to this matter, and which Musa Millington has failed to grasp, comprehend and acknowledge, choosing instead to fall into blatant contradiction and incoherence.

The Bid'ah of Mujmal and Mufassal

But as for the bid'ah (in the form of an innovated principle whose intent was to defend the heads of innovation in our time like Sayyid Qutb, al-Maghrawi and others) was propagated by Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee in order to defend the authors of such statements that do not carry except baatil (لا يحتمل إلا باطلا). Such statements include his own, accusing the Sahaabah of being "scum" (الغثائية) and likewise the statements of Sayyid Qutb which are explicit in the aqidah of wahdat ul-wujood and takfir of some of the Sahabah and likewise the statements of al-Maghrawi in making takfir of the Muslim sinners. He was refuted for this false principle by the Scholars, foremost amongst them, Shaykh Rabee' who wrote extensively on this subject.

As for when phrases carry meanings that may be false or correct (due to their ambiguity, generalization), then in that situation upon a person is to clarify and explain and to remove the ambiguity and generalization. Others may criticize this statement and explain the error with respect to its ambiguity, generalization. For this reason, by way of example, the Scholars have criticized the statement of Ibn Hajar in that it is an incorrect generalization for all the actions (in the view of those scholars who see no problem in using the terms shart sihhah and shart kamaal in the first place that is). This process here comprises an acceptable and established principle with Ahl al-Sunnah and has nothing to do with the bid'ah of al-mujmal wal-mufassal of al-Ma'ribee, rather it clashes with that innovated principle and invalidates it.

An Explanation that Musa Millington Does Not Take From the Ulamaa's Tafseelaat and Follows His Own Desires

It is clear that Musa Millington and those with him are simply taking what is contained in my posts in this thread and the explanations therein which are founded upon what the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have outlined with the aim of trying their very best to craft and engineer refutations so as to ascribe to me the opposing of the usool of Ahl al-Sunnah - seeing that their initial attempt failed miserably - even with the use of a blatant slander (promoting the aqeedah of the Ash'aris) and outright dishonesty in ommitting content from the two page chapter which they selectively quoted from. After the initial attempt failed miserably and Abu Fujoor al-Kadhdhaab was exposed, Musa Millington tried to come to his aid to pick up the broken pieces. In this latest attempt, Musa Millington has demonstrated the traits he shares with Abu Fujoor in totally misrepresenting the writings and discussions of the Scholars and having a paucity of understanding, and stumbling in his confusion. Let us make this matter clear:

When al-Ma'ribee came with his innovated principle of al-Mujmal wal-Mufassal he tried to argue for it by confusing it with what are otherwise correct principles affirmed by Ahl al-Sunnah. So Shaykh Rabee, when he refuted him, separated between the false princple of al-Ma'ribee from all of that which al-Ma'ribee was trying to use to deceive others into thinking that he has not innovated anything new. In his treatise in refutation of Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee's bidah of al-Mujmal wal-Mufassal (Ibtaal Mazaa'im Abil-Hasan...), Shaykh Rabee states the following:

وقال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله في مجموع الفتاوى: " فإن من خاطب بلفظ العام يتناول حقاً وباطلا ولم يبين مراده توجه الاعتراض عليه". أقول: هذه قاعدة مهمة ينبغي مراعاتها والاستفادة منها وهي تبطل ما يقوله أهل الأهواء "بحمل المجمل على المفصل ، والمفصل هو حال الشخص الذي يتكلم بالمجمل". والسلف الصالح على أن العام والمطلق من المجملات ، وبيانها يكون بتخصيص العام وتقييد المطلق ، وعليه شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية. فمن نطق بالعام ولم يخصصه بكلام أو بلفظ مطلق ولم يقيده بكلام يرفع الإشكال توجه عليه الاعتراض، وقد يُخَطَّأُ إذا كان من أهل الاجتهاد في مواضع الاجتهاد، وقد يبدع إذا كان في الأصول والعقائد لا سيما إذا أصر وعاند
And Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) said in Majmu' al-Fataawaa, "For the one who addressed (others) with a general word that can comprise truth and falsehood, and did not clarify his intent, then an objection can be directed towards him."

I (Rabee') say: This is an important principe that is desirable to be observed and to benefit from, [U]and it invalidates what the people of desires say of "carrying the mujmal upon the mufassal and the mufassal is the condition of the person who has spoken with the mujmal."

And the Righteous Salaf are upon the view that the aam (general) and mutlaq (unrestricted) are from the mujmalaat (generalizations, ambiguities), and their clarification is through specifying the general and qualifying the unrestricted. And upon this is Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Hence, whoever spoke with the aam (general) and did not specify his speech, or spoke with a speech that is mutlaq (unrestricted) and did not qualify it with a speech that removes the problematic (element in it), then criticism can be directed towards him. He can be considered to be in error, if he is from the people of ijtihaad in the places of ijtihaad. And he may even be declared an innovator when it is in the usool (foundations) and beliefs, especially when he persists and shows stubborn denial.From this important distinction in this matter by Shaykh Rabee' we derive the following benefits:


That there is a separate, correct principle affirmed and corroborated with Ahl al-Sunnah which is that generalized and unrestricted speech must be clarified when it may comprise truth or falsehood.



This principle is other than the principle of al-mujmal wal-mufassal intended by al-Ma'ribee, and it in fact invalidates the principle of al-mujmal wal-mufassal in which it is claimed that when someone speaks that which is outright baatil it is necessary to look at his condition in general so as to make excuses and to put that baatil in the best light possible.

Shaykh Rabee' separated out the falsehood of al-Ma'ribee from what are otherwise correct principles with Ahl al-Sunnah. Upon this, what Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul explained in what I quoted from him in the previous post is actually the principle affirmed with Ahl al-Sunnah of takhsees (specification) of the aam (general) and taqyeed (restriction) of the mutlaq (unrestricted) where ambiguity is found - in fact it is the very thing stated by Ibn Taymiyyah "For the one who addressed (others) with a general word that can comprise truth and falsehood, and did not clarify his intent, then an objection can be directed towards him"- and upon this we understand what Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul wrote regarding Shaykh al-Albani's speech (which is actually Ibn Hajar's speech) and mentioned the issue of looking at what a person intends by these statements and the necessity of tafseel (clarifying) and istifsaal (seeking clarification) where the intent has not been clarified in generalized statements, and where truth or falsehood may be contained. And practically speaking, when istifsaal (clarification) was sought from Shaykh al-Albaanee in his lifetime, when people would go to him and take the accusations that his sayings comprise Irjaa', he would clarify and explain that actions are part of eemaan, and action is necessary for the validity of eemaan, and clarify his intent. When the clarification has been made, then the issue is resolved and the i'tiraad (objection) is then removed. All that remains then is the issue of an erroneous expression used to put forward what is essentially a correct meaning (upon the acceptable fiqh difference regarding the ruling on abandoning prayer as it relates to this particular matter).

This is a different subject area to that of the innovation of al-mujmal wal-mufassal of al-Ma'ribee which is used to defend outright baatil [such as the statement that "the Companions are scum" and so on], which does not enter into the subject of unspecified generality or unqualified absolution. Because what al-Ma'ribee is intending by his principle is that no clarification or recantation is required, and that when a person says for example "the Companions are scum", if we know him to be from the Sunnah, instead of criticizing him, we should go to other statements of his where he praises the Companions, and through this we carry what is mujmal [which in reality is a false claim, it is not "mujmal" but is outright plain baatil] upon the general condition of this person, or what this same person has said elsewhere, all in order to make excuses for him and for the baatil he expressed. This principle of al-mujmal wal-mufassal allows for falsehood and that which is incorrect to remain and be excused, unlike the correct principle with Ahl al-Sunnah.

These are two different issues, and Shaykh Rabee' clarified the difference between them to refute the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee and the Shaykh elaborated upon this to show the difference. Hence, Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul explained the matter of Shaykh al-Albaanee's speech (which is that of Ibn Hajar) upon correct Shar'iyy principles which I followed him in, the Shaykh said:

والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها
And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them.Based upon the saying of Ibn Taymiyyah:

فإن من خاطب بلفظ العام يتناول حقاً وباطلا ولم يبين مراده توجه الاعتراض عليه
"For the one who addressed (others) with a general word that can comprise truth and falsehood, and did not clarify his intent, then an objection can be directed towards him.And as elaborated by Shaykh Rabee himself as has preceded. And note that Ibn Taymiyyah said, (ولم يبين مراده), "... and did not make clear his intent..." indicating that when the intent is made clear in the same time and place as the original speech or writing, or thereafter, then the matter is different and there is no objection remaining except from the angle of it not being befitting to use the ambiguous word or phrase.

O dear! Musa Millington has confused between the two issues, indicating that he mines into the statements and writings of the Scholar upon his own whim, understanding and personal agenda, without recourse to the Scholars! He has clearly not understood this issue (just as he has not understood the issue of the usage of the terms shart kamaal and shart sihhah and has shown his stumbling and his contradiction). This is a great crime against not only in the issue you are attempting to discuss, but also to the Scholars whose writings you are relying upon in the process, when you are falsely applying what they have written to situations which they themselves have isolated and distinguished from that which they have made the object of criticism. It is upon Musa Millington to make tawbah from this straight away for misleading others in this matter.

Regarding the Statement of Ibn Hajar

Even though the statement in question is not even my statement, it is the statement of Ibn Hajar, I included that passage from him in that short two-page chapter only to use as evidence the part where he says that to the Salaf, eemaan is i'tiqaad (belief), qawl (speech) and 'amal (action) in order to refute the Tahriris for distinguishing between eemaan and aqeedah and not for any other purpose, so the error is Ibn Hajar's, not mine. The real issue was simply that an observation or two in that chapter would have helped to maintained clarity, and this is where the real objection is and how it should have been presented instead of slandering me by saying I promoted the aqeedah of the Ash'aris. In any case and despite all that, I wrote in three places in my first post about the erroneous generalization of Ibn Hajar's words on 7th March, here they are once again:


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 whose abandoment is a kabeerah (major sin) which they hold to be shart sihhah. Hence, the generalization made by Ibn Hajar is incorrect. And I quoted al-Shibal:

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. مع أن العمل عند أهل السنة والجماعة ركن من أركان الإيمان الثلاثة: قول وعمل واعتقاد، والإيمان عندهم يزيد وينقص. خلافاً للخوارج والمعتزلة. والله ولي التوفيق
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). Alongside this, action to Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is a pillar from its three pillars (which are): statement (qawl), action (amal) and belief (i'tiqaad), and eemaan in their view, increases and decreases, in opposition to the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah, and Allaah is the granter of success.And I quoted Muhammad Ishaq Kandu from his Master's thesis:


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.All of this was very conveniently ignored by Musa Millington when he decided to come to the rescue of the faajir kadhdhaab (Abu Fujoor) who started this thing off. Musa Milington pretended to be ignorant of all of these matters I clarified in the very first post, showing his injustice. In my subsequent posts I went on to explain that the use of the words shart kamaal and shart sihhah, there is diversity amongst the Scholars regarding their use, and thus ambiguity.


Some Scholars have used the phrase "shart kamaal" for actions which other scholars have said is Irjaa' (whilst the intending meaning of those scholars was to refute the Mu'tazilah)
Some Scholars have used "shart sihhah" for action which some other scholars (Shaykh al-Suhaymee) have said gives the presumption of the aqidah of the Khawaarij and others (Shaykh al-Raajihee) say that this is also Irjaa' because it entails expelling actions from eemaan (due to using the word shart), whereas the intent of those scholars is to refute the Murji'ah for not making action a part of eemaan.
Some Scholars have made tafseel some actions are shart sihhah and some are shart kamaal and despite this, some other Scholars have said this also expels action from eemaan because the issue revolves around the word shart and that it is a contradiction to use these terms.
Some (Shaykh al-Rajihee) have said anyone who uses these terms, whether to say action is shart sihhah or actions are shart kamaal, that they are from the Murji'ah without any distinction between them, both of them are from the Murji'ah whether they say shart sihhah or shart kamaal.
Some have said these terms should be avoided altogether (the best opinion and advice)

There is no doubt that these statements (due to their generalization or unrestriction) therefore become problematic and contain ambiguity because the very intent behind their usage varies amongst the Scholars. The use of "shart sihhah" and "shart kamaal", these statements may comprise truth or falsehood and thus, what is required here is bayaan (clarification). When the matter is clarified, then there is no i'tiraad (criticism any longer).

As Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul stated :

والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها ؛فإن أراد من قال: الأعمال شرط كمال، أن التقصير في العمل سبب في نقص الإيمان، فهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية، وقد ينقص حتى يزول إذا ترك العمل بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع، فهذا معنى قول أهل السنة والجماعة، ولكن الخطأ في العبارة!
And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "Actions are shart kamaal" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression.So a person may intend a true meaning, but may err in the expression.

This is what Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul has clarified in his introduction to Shaykh al-Albaani's Sifat Salaat al-Nabi. Likewise we say about the statement that "action is shart sihhah for eemaan", this is a generalization and contains an ambiguity, it may comprise the meaning intended by the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij, or it may comprise the meaning intended by Ahl al-Sunnah that the genus of action is required for eemaan to be valid. Thus, here we make istifsaal (as Shaykh Bazmul says) and clarify the intent, whilst the statement itself is considered an incorrect unrestriction (itlaaq) that may give presumption of aqidah of the Khawarij to some scholars or the aqidah of the Murji'ah to others.

Compare this to the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee who was using his innovated false principle of al-mujmal wal-mufassal to defend sayings such as:


The Companions are scum! (al-Ma'ribee) How on earth could a person have intended a correct meaning but erred in the expression here?!
That all the verses in the Qur'an pertaining to the Hypocrites apply to 100% of the people in our time! (al-Maghrawi). How on earth could a person have intended a correct meaning but erred in expression here?!
Statements that are explicit in Wahdat ul-Wujood.

ِAnd whatever is similar to these types of plain falsehood in whose meaning and wording there is no ambiguity and which are nothing to with the correct principle with Ahl al-Sunnah outlined earlier. This is the intent of al-Ma'ribee, to defend statements such as these, with his own innovated principle. And Shaykh Rabee' clarified the difference so as to refute al-Ma'ribee to remove any confusion.

Musa Millington Exposes His True Realities: Fake Scholarship and Misrepresenting the Writings of the Scholars Out of Hawaa

It is now clear that Musa Millington is doing gross injustice to Shaykh Rabee' from the angle that Shaykh Rabee made a distinction between these matters (by the above clarification during his radd on al-Ma'ribee) in order to refute the principle of al-Ma'ribee. Musa Millington has completely misunderstood the issue of al-mujmal and al-mufassal that al-Ma'ribee intended and in his ignorance and shallow understanding, he thought he could accuse me of applying this principle. It is clear that he is simply trying to find any way or means to accuse me of opposing the usool in his vain attempts to send out a barrage of PDF refutations which show nothing except his takhabbut (stumbling, fumbling) in this matter. The likeness between him and Abu Fujoor becomes even more apparent. Further, he demonstrates the Haddaadee traits that are becoming more and more evident and which include: a) jahl, b) hawaa, c) lying upon the Shaykhs of Ahl al-Sunnah, d) accusing them of entering innovation and opposing the usool, e) slandering innocent Muslims in their religion, f) using as evidence the statements and writings of Scholars (such as those of Shaykh Rabee') out of their proper places.

In reality, Musa Millington is accusing not me, but Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul of employing the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee in order to defend Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh al-Albani was simply using the expression of Ibn Hajar in order to explain that when a Muslim leaves a branch from the outward branches of eemaan, that he does not become a disbeliever, and this is Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul's explanation, and I did not bring this from myself.

Which from the people of knowledge has Musa Millington returned to in his claim that to say what Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul has said in the introduction to his sharh of Shaykh al-Albani's [I]Sifat al-Salaah is the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee, "al-Mujmal wal-Mufassal"?!

No one!

Hence their ignorance and oppression continues:


Firstly, Abu Fujoor tried to accuse me of propagating the aqeedah of the Ash'aris, a gross slander. As for Ibn Hajar's generalization, I clarified it three times in one post at the top of this thread. It is from the traits of the Haddaadees that they can't stomach clarifications which put a dead stop to their intended mischief and their kindling of the fire.



Secondly, In Musa's attempts to cover and defend Abu Fujoor and lend him support, he unwittingly undermined the whole point of Abu Fujoor's initial document by using the example of wudhoo being a shart of the prayer (it is shart sihhah for the prayer and outside of the prayer) [despite the context being one that relates to kamaal], which when pointed out (10th March) to show their utter confusion, it led Musa to telling lies and twisting the realities in order to hide his embarassment in his subsequent 12 page PDF he released the next day (11th March) as a means to cover things up and overturn the realities.



Thirdly, Musa is now ascribing the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee to Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul in reality who explained that the phrases "actions are shart kamaal" and "actions are shart sihhah" are ambiguous, generalized phrases which require tafseel and by which a person may intend a true or a false meaning. This has come from a person of knowledge, a Shaykh, a Scholar, it did not originate from me. Further, this point also has support from what was said by Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel whose statement I also quoted in the previous post.

My advice to Musa Millington and the others is to stop right now and repent to Allaah before you end up falling into greater disgraces Already you have done injustice to Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul and Shaykh Rabee' from the angle that you are misrepresenting the issue of al-mujmal wal-mufassal through your fake scholarship. All these PDFs you are writing are nothing but a sign of your desperation. Your initial plot failed and you were exposed. Then you embarked upon a campaign to discredit me through every means possible. But since that time you have not ceased exposing your ownselves and the people have seen your ignorance and oppression. The likeness between Musa Millington and Abu Fujoor is manifesting itself more and more, indeed a man is like the one he keeps company with. We seek refuge in Allaah from jahl (ignorance) and ittibaa' ul-hawaa (following desires).

All praise is due to Allaah and salaat and salaam be upon the Messenger, his Family and Companions.

[Abu.Iyaad]

After my last post yesterday in response to Musa Millington's misguided accusation that I implement and promote the false principle of al-Ma'ribee of al-mujmal and mufassal - an accusation which in reality is directed to Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul, because he (along with Shaykh Muhammad Aqeel) are the ones whose speech in post no. 10 in this thread was based upon, today, to my surprise, I received an email that this network of people have gone to two Shaykhs. I sincerely praise and thank Allaah that they did this for reasons outlined in this post. In this post we will understand the pathology (diagnosis) of (the disease of) Abu Fujoor (which appears to be infecting those who maintain contact with him and participate in his activities).

First let us take a look at this email.

98

There are a number of points:

POINT 1: The Title, "One of our brothers called two of the scholars regarding the issue of Amjad Rafeeq." This is unnecessary pretentiousness. On 6th March Abu Fujoor al-Kadhdhaab sent out his 8 page "Clarification". In this clarification he concealed content highly-relevant from the two-page chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah (regarding eemaan with the Salaf) and slandered me by claiming I propagated the aqidah of the Ash'ariyyah. However, he brought statements regarding valid observations on Ibn Hajar's statement that was included in the chapter in question. On 7th March, I posted a response (first in this thread) stating: a) Abu Fujoor is an established kadhdhaab with undisputable evidences. b) That an established and confirmed liar nevertheless can speak what is correct as well, c) That there are observations on the statement of Ibn Hajar. In that first post I clarified all those observations and which were related to: a) the definition of eemaan linguistically as tasdeeq, b) the generalization in Ibn Hajr's speech when explaining the difference between the position of the Salaf and that of the Mu'tazilah, and this I stated in my own words in POINT 4 in that first post and also by citing from al-Shibal, c) the saying of actions are condition for the completion of eemaan (through Kandu's Master's thesis). And with this the "issue" was finished and there was no issue left. This put an immediate and rapid end to the mischief intended by Abu Fujoor, he was left empty-handed. He had been exposed yet again for a) jahl (ignorance), b) kadhib (lying) c) pretence (pretending he compiled those statements) d) evil intentions. Thus, when Abu Fujoor sends out this email today on 17th March, 10 days later, with the title, "One of our brothers called two of the scholars regarding the issue of Amjad Rafeeq", this is takaabur (arrogance) and takalluf (unnecessary pretentious activity). Pathological liars are driven by a need to falsify prior established facts. There is really no issue except in the minds of these individuals. It has become an issue for them because "the ends justify the means", and hence we see the means they have now resorted to.

Despite the issue being closed and done and dusted with that first post, Musa Millington came along to give Abu Fujoor some back up, choosing to be heedless of what my first post contained. Something he posted on 8th March was sent to me by someone by email, which I then addressed. From this point on, the discussion moved onto the issue of the word shart (condition) and the ambiguity and confusion it creates in this particular subject area. I spoke at length with respect to this (in numerous posts above) and made some observations which centered around the following:


The word "shart" is used by different scholars (as in shart kamaal, shart sihhah) with different intentions in mind.
There is no consistency amongst the scholars on its use, some employ it for the afraad of the actions (as it relates to what invalidates eemaan if abandoned from the individual actions), some employ it for action in its genus (as it relates to the sihhah of eemaan), some apply it to both the kamal and sihhah of eemaan and make tafseel, some oppose its use, and some label anyone who uses it at all, in any way, as expelling actions from eemaan.
When these terms are used "shart kamaal", "shart sihhah" the scholars intend different objectives, sometimes refuting the Murji'ah, sometimes refuting the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij, sometimes speaking about actions individually (in their afraad), sometimes speaking about action in their genus and so on.
Built upon this when a scholar has used these terms, then we understand his intent based upon what underlying usool he is affirming in this subject of eeman. Thus if a scholar says actions are a part of eemaan, emaan increases and decreases (because it is made up of actions, along with beliefs and speech), and opposes the Murij'ah in their usool, and then he uses the words "shart kamaal" (for actions) then we understand his intent in light of that,especially when the context explicitly indicates he is intending opposition to the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij by this. This way, we can identify very precisely, the exact and true nature of the error, whether it is in the meaning or merely the expression that was used.
And that despite this, the ambiguity and generalization in the use of such terms can be objected to, because this can be considered an error in expression, even if the underlying meaning and intent is actually correct and that its best that they are avoided.

These were some of the main points I addressed in my posts above, there were many more. After this, these people (in particular Musa Millington) sent out barrage of desperate refutations (after the initial attempt failed to reach its objectives), with claims of "opposing the usool" and "using the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee" (al-mujmal and mufassal) and so on.

POINT 2: Dishonesty and Falsification in the Question. Allaah knows best who crafted the question. Was it one person? Did they collaborate on the question? Whatever the case, there is deliberate distortion of facts from someone amongst them. In their question below I have inserted the Arabic wording in parts of the question (from the audio) to indicate inaccuracy in translation and also inaccuracy in the actual presentation of the facts in the question. Pay attention to the part in blue. Any highlighting is from me in order to draw attention to the reader to that which is being commented on.


One of the brothers wrote on the issue of Imaan and he came with the speech of Imaam Ibn Hajar that the Salaf’s view was that Imaan consists of statements actions and belief and that actions are a condition of Imaan (note: in arabic [وأن العمل شرط كمال ], action in singular).

Therefore another brother clarified that this definition of Imaan was incorrect because:

It is general [لأنه مجمل] (the speech can be taken into many different ways) [note: the explanation in brackets (the speech can be taken into many different ways) is not in the question, it is an explanatory addition by Abu Fujoor].
It is from the speech of the Murji’ah

Then he came with the speech of the scholars such as Ibn Baaz, Saalih Aal Ash Shaikh, Saalih Al Fawzaan and Shaikh Rajihi. However, the brothers who wrote the speech of Ibn Hajar said: “This speech is according to the intention of the person and the Usool that he operates from.” Is there any advice for the person who wrote the speech of Ibn Hajar in this matter?The following points can be made here:

The First: I already made the observation earlier on that we have to be careful in distinguishing between the usage of the words (العمل) and (الأعمال) because the scholars who use them can either be referring to the genus of action (meaning, action in principle, not any particular individual action, but action in concept and principle), and individual actions (الأعمال) . Thus we may see the word (العمل) and (الأعمال) being used for a specific purpose. In the question in Arabic, the questioner informed the Shaykh in the speech of Ibn Hajar there is (وأن العمل شرط كمال). This is incorrect, Ibn Hajar did not say that, he used the word (الأعمال). This is purely from the point of being accurate in words and not misrepresenting or misquoting anybody.

The Second: The blatant lie that the brother (i.e. Abu Fujoor) who explained the definition was incorrect did so because "It is general" [لأنه مجمل] (the speech can be taken into many different ways). This is outright falsification. It is a blatant deliberate lie. Rather, this was the very reason they started to attack and refute me for claiming that this statement is "mujmal" (general, ambiguous) and that we should investigate the intent of the one who uses it even if the expression can be considered erroneous. The very likely reason why they have inserted this lie into the question is to do with the issue of Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul's clarification I posted on 15th March (post no. 11) that these are mujmal words and that the intent of the who uses them should be clarified. Musa Millington accused me (in reality he is accusing Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul) of the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee on account of this point I had been making all along. Since, I pointed out what is in reality a false attack upon Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul (as well as me) and showed their ignorance in this matter, they appear to be trying to cover their tracks by falsifying prior established facts in the subsequent cover up operation they are running now. And one of the ways is to embed false information into the questions they are using to elicit speech from those whom they have gone to in order to use against me, so that when other people come to review what happened they will only see a version of what was said and what transpired which contains within it embedded false information to overturn the realities.

This very point (about these terms being ambiguous and general and therefore requiring tafseel (clarification) and istifsaal (seeking clarification) is the one that I actually made in many of my posts and for which they attacked and accused me (and Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul to the first degree) of implementing the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee!

The Third: Regarding the part that Abu Fujoor added from himself in his translation of the question, (the speech can be taken into many different ways). This is what Musa Millington attempted to refute me for, and claimed that I implemented the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee on account of it. Later in their question they say about the point that I made, "This speech is according to the intention of the person..." So what is the difference then? If the speech is mujmal (as you claimed falsely in the question that you had explained this to me), and you say in explanation (the speech can be taken into many different ways), then how is it wrong if I say "This speech is according to the intention of the person..." (because it is mujmal and depends on what the person intends by it)? This is a contradiction in the very question itself (alongside what it contains of blatant falsification of the facts). But as I said, they are trying to cover their backs after I posted the previous post in defence of Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul and his discussion of this point within his explanation of Sifat Salah al-Nabi of Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahullaah).

The Fourth: The last part of the question:


Then he came with the speech of the scholars such as Ibn Baaz, Saalih Aal Ash Shaikh, Saalih Al Fawzaan and Shaikh Rajihi. However, the brothers who wrote the speech of Ibn Hajar said: “This speech is according to the intention of the person and the Usool that he operates from.” Is there any advice for the person who wrote the speech of Ibn Hajar in this matter?This is perhaps the greatest lie of all. Whoever conspired upon this question has proven they have little wara' (awe, fear) of Allaah. Rather, if they had feared Allaah in this matter, they would have said:


The brother made a clarification that the statement of Ibn Hajar contains a number of observations and made the clarification in his own words and in the words of al-Shibal and likewise from Kandu's master's thesis. The brother then went on to explain that these terms which involve the word shart are ambiguous and cause difficulty because their use is not consistent amongst the Scholars and he stated that the intent of a person behind their use should be looked at in light of what that person affirms of usool pertaining to eemaan, even if the expression itself may be erroneous... etc.So if they feared Allaah, this is what they would have said. But this is outright blatant dishonesty. Despite this they never achieved anything or got anything in the process. Notice that the answer of Shaykh al-Barraak is incomplete, it cuts off abruptly at the part where the issue of speech (qawl) is being discussed. That's not the full answer, there must be more. Allaah knows best why it has been clipped at that point.

To indicate the dishonesty of these people, here are the sample quotes from my first post on 7th March once again, for the record:


POINT 2: Ahl al-Sunnah are the most just of people, an established liar may sometimes have some speech which is correct, just as the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallaam) said to Abu Hurayrah (صدقك وهو كذوب) "He spoke the truth to you even though he is a great liar." The statement from Ibn Hajar (rahimahullaah) under question does have a couple of observations.And also:


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 whose abandoment is a kabeerah (major sin) which they hold to be shart sihhah. Hence, the generalization made by Ibn Hajar is incorrect. I also quoted al-Shibal, the author of al-Tanbeeh 'alaa al-Mukhaalafaat al-Aqadiyyah Fil-Fath al-Baaree (Dar al-Watan, 1422, p. 28):

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. مع أن العمل عند أهل السنة والجماعة ركن من أركان الإيمان الثلاثة: قول وعمل واعتقاد، والإيمان عندهم يزيد وينقص. خلافاً للخوارج والمعتزلة. والله ولي التوفيق
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). Alongside this, action to Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is a pillar from its three pillars (which are): statement (qawl), action (amal) and belief (i'tiqaad), and eemaan in their view, increases and decreases, in opposition to the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah, and Allaah is the granter of success.I also quoted Kandu, from his Master's thesis:


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.POINT 3: The Answer of al-Shibal. This is where you wonder whether these people actually have any aql (reason). I wonder why they even bothered to send out this answer of al-Shibal, it undermines all their subsequent refutations (after Abu Fujoor's first clarification of 6th March). It proves they do not really grasp the issues and are more interested in attaining their ulterior motives. First, it is better to quote the original Arabic of the response from the audio, because Abu Fujoor's translation contains inaccuracies and omissions (this established kadhdhaab and dishonest, unreliable individual should not be translating anything at all).

The answer of al-Shibal:

الحافظ ابن حجر - رحمه الله - في هذه المسألة أخطأ فالعمل قد يكون شرط كمال وقد (يكون) شرط صحة وقد يكون ركنا وقد يكون مستحبا. وأما إخراح العمل عن الإيمان إذا كونه شرطا من شروطه هذا كلام غير صحيح. فالعمل من الإيمان باتفاق السلف لأن الإيمان قول واعتقاد وعمل والعمل هنا منه ما هو ركن من الإيمان لا يصح الإيمان إلا به ومنه ما هو واجب ومنه ما هو شرط ومنه ما هو مستحب نعمLet's provide our own translation here:


al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar (rahimahullaah) erred in this matter. For action (العمل) can sometimes be shart kamaal (condition for perfection) and sometimes be shart sihhah (condition for validity) and sometimes can be a rukn (pillar) and sometimes can be mustahabb (recommended). As for expelling action from eemaan by making it a condition amongst it conditions, this speech is not correct. Hence, action is from eemaan by agreement of the Salaf, because eemaan is speech, belief and action. And action here, from it is that which is a pillar (rukn), eemaan is not valid without it, and from it is that which is waajib (obligatory) and from it is that which is a shart (condition) and from it is that which is mustahabb (recommended).A number of points on this:

The First: Abu Fujoor and those collobarating with him on this have proved that they don't understand a thing here and I am certain that they were so fixated on sending out an email titled "Two Scholars regarding the issue of Amjad Rafeeq" that they forgot to actually stop and reflect on the content, meaning and implication of what they wanted to send out! They don't know whether something is for them or against them.

The second: This statement of al-Shibal corroborates and validates every point that I have been making all along for the following reasons:


Al-Shibal is saying that action, in its genus, is a rukn, and from it is that which is a shart (of either kamaal or sihhah), that which is waajib and that which is mustahabb. Here, he intends to criticize Ibn Hajar who said that the a'maal (as in individual actions) are all shart kamaal, and who made this statement to essentially refute the Mu'tazilah. The angle of criticism that al-Shibal is corroborating again here is not the actual use of "shart kamaal" as a term (because al-Shibal has used it himself here in this very answer) but to criticize the generalization or non-restriction (itlaaq) of Ibn Hajar.



To put it another way, al-Shibal's answer is getting the following across: When he says action (العمل) can sometimes be a rukn (pillar), here he is referring to the genus of action (meaning not any specific action individually but action as a whole, in principle), and thus it is one of the three pillars, belief, speech and action without which eemaan is not established (or he can be referring to the arkaan, such as the shahaadah, prayer, fasting, zakah, hajj). When he says action can sometimes be (شرط كمال) he means that from it whose abandonment does not invalidate eemaan (from the waajibaat and mustahabbaat). When he says that sometimes it can be (شرط صحة) he means that from it whose performance is required for eemaan to be valid (i.e. establishing prayer) or that whose abandonment is required for eeman to be valid (i.e. committing shirk, reviling the religion etc.). And when he says it can sometimes be (واجب) or (مستحب), he means that from it which if someone acts upon is from the obligatory or recommended perfection of eemaan (without him invalidating eemaan if he does not bring it).



Al-Shibal says from action it is that which is a shart kamaal and that which is shart sihhah. By criticizing the generalization of Ibn Hajar (although it certainly solves a part of the problem), it still does not solve the entire problem for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is because he is still employing the words "shart kamaal" and "shart sihhah" (see next point below) for that which enters into eemaan and he is from that group of scholars who still employ these terms to speak about action and eemaan. The second reason is those who say "actions are shart kamaal for eemaan", they affirm action is a pillar and a juz' of eemaan (and that there are waajibaat and mustahabbaat). They simply mean to say that the abandonment of none of the commanded actions individually entails disblief (upon their fiqh position that abandonment of prayer without juhood does not invalidate eemaan) and this is in order to refute the Mu'tazilah who say that leaving off something of outward action invalidates eemaan. The reality of al-Shibal's critique is that because he considers abandonment of prayer to invalidate eemaan, and he may also be including those actions whose abandonment is from the validity of eemaan itself (such as committing shirk and mocking the religion or the messenger etc.), he sees a problem with this generalization of Ibn Hajar, because in light of this, not all actions therefore can be considered "shart kamaal" and in this case he is absolutely correct, if we look at it from this angle. So here it now comes down to what is person really intending by his phrases and what he means by action(s) - is it the genus, or individual actions, and does he hold abandoning prayer invalidates eemaan, and is he including within "action" the abandonment (ترك) of those actions which invalidate eemaan (i.e. committing acts of shirk and kufr).



We have still not escaped the ambiguity that I have been speaking about all along, because even al-Shibal is still making use of the word shart (be it for kamaal or be it for sihhah in relation to something of what enters into eemaan), whereas some Scholars say that this is also Irjaa' (entails expelling action from eemaan) - - and other Scholars say it is a contradiction! So going to al-Shibal and posing this question to him (and his answer) does not solve any problems in reality and it really proves the immaturity of these people. However, the answer of al-Shibal does validate everything I have said all along. Which is that there is ambiguity in these terms because they are being used with different intents and purposes, there is no consistency. And thus, if you want to criticize Ibn Hajar's (or al-Albani's) statement because it may comprise Irjaa', then don't come with the statements of other scholars which can also be said to comprise Irjaa'.

All of this brings us in a round circle, back to where we started from!

This establishes what Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul said (and which Musa Millington in his ignorance stated is the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee of al-mujmal wal-mufassal):

والذي يظهر من سياق كلامه رحمه الله أنه إنما يريد أن التقصير في الأعمال الصالحة لا يبطل الإيمان، فهو يريد بهذه العبارة الرد على الذين يشترطون لصحة الإيمان ألاَّ يعمل معصية، وألاَّ يقع صاحبه في تقصير، لا أنه يريد أن الإيمان يثبت بدون عمل أصلاً ... والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها؛ فإن أراد من قال: الأعمال شرط كمال، أن التقصير في العمل سبب في نقص الإيمان، فهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية، وقد ينقص حتى يزول إذا ترك العمل بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع، فهذا معنى قول أهل السنة والجماعة، ولكن الخطأ في العبارة! وإن أراد أن الإيمان يثبت في أصله بغير عمل، وأن العمل ليس من حقيقة الإيمان، فهذا قول المرجئة

ومن قال: الأعمال شرط في صحة الإيمان، إذا كان مراده أن أصل الإيمان لا يثبت إلا بعمل، فلا إيمان بلا عمل، ومن قصر في العمل أنقص من إيمانه، فإذا ترك العمل الصالح بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع ذهب إيمانه؛ فإن هذا هو قول أهل السنة و الجماعة. إذ الظاهر والباطن متلازمان! فالأعمال شرط في صحة ثبوت الإيمان، وهي شرط في كمال الإيمان بعد ثبوته!وإن أراد أن من أنقص العمل ذهب إيمانه، لأن الإيمان إذا نقص بعضه، ذهب كله، فلا يصح إيمان مع نقص العمل، فهذا قول الخوارج
And that which is apparent from the context of his speech (rahimahullaah) is that he intends that falling short in the righteous actions does not invalidate eemaan. For he intends by this expression refutation of those who specify as a condition for eemaan that he not fall into disobedience (sin), and that a person (of eemaan) not fall into deficiency, not that he intends that eemaan can be established with any action fundamentally... And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "[I]Actions are shart kamaal (for eemaan)" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression. And if he intended that eemaan can be established in its foundation (asl) without any action, and that action is not from the reality of eemaan, then this is the saying of the Murji'ah.

And whoever said "actions are a condition for the validity of eemaan", if his intent is that the foundation (asl) of eemaan cannot be established without action, and thus there is no eemaan without action, and that whoever fell short in action has diminished something from his eemaan. And when he abandons all of the righteous actions in their entirety despite having the ability and there being nothing to prevent him, that his eemaan goes, then this is the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah. Since the outward and inward are mutually bound together! Hence, the actions [as a genus] are a condition for the validity in the (initial) establishment of eemaan, and they [in their afraad, individual instances] are a condition for the perfection of eemaan after its (initial) establishment! But if he means that whoever diminishes anything of action, then his eemaan will go (altogether) because when something of eemaan goes, all of it goes, and thus no eemaan can be valid alongside the decrease in action, then this is the saying of the Khawaarij.POINT 4: This is what Musa Millington and the rest of this group refused to accept from me and as a result began to write all their subsequent (desperate) refutations. It indicates that they have not really thought about this matter well, and on top of this have added much lies, deception and dishonesty in the process.

And all praise be to Allaah, may the salaat and salaam be upon the Messenger, his family and companions.