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: 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, by Abdulilah Lahmami 2. Tawriyah v Taqiyyah, 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 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 [brief] 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 [Ibn Hajar] 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: 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, "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 [both] 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, "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.