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

[Abu.Iyaad]

Contrasting Between the Irjaa' of the Maturidiyyah, Followers of the Murji'at al-Fuquhaa and the Positions and Statements of Ibn Hajar and Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahumullaah) This is a very crucial point and it helps us to understand the various statements of the Scholars of today in their criticisms and refutations of the Murji'ah and also their comments and remarks upon the Statements of Ibn Hajar and Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahumullaah) The Maturidiyyah, Followers of the Murji'at al-Fuquhaa Who Deny Action (in Principle, in its Genus) is Part of, or From Eemaan First, let us quote Muhammad Zaahid al-Kawtharee, from his comment of his tahqeeq of book by Abu al-Husayn al-Malattee al-Asqalani, "al-Tanbeeh wal-Radd alaa Ahl al-Ahwaa wal-Bida'" (1397H, p. 42): عمل الجوارح من كمال الإيمان لا أنه جزء من ماهية الإيمان لئلا يلزم الانزلاق إلى مذهب المعتزلة أو الخوارج ...the actions of the limbs are from the perfection of eemaan, not that they are a part (juz') from the essence of eemaan, (this) so that sliding towards the madhhab of the Mu'tazilah or the Khawaarij is not necessitated... ِAnd al-Kawtharee also said in his tahqeeq of "al-Farq bayna al-Firaq of al-Baghdadi" (1367H, p. 123): عد العمل ركنا يجر إلى معتقد الخوارج أو المعتزلة ومحققو علماء أصول الدين مع أبي حنيفة في ذلك ... وزعم خلاف ذلك موقع في معتقد الخوارج أو المعتزلة Treating action (amal) as a rukn (pillar in eemaan) leads to the doctrine of the Khawarij or the Mu'tazilah, and the verifiers from the scholars of the foundations of the religion are with Abu Haneefah regarding that... and claiming the opposite of that makes one fall into the doctrine of the Khawarij or the Mu'tazilah And al-Shahrastaani says in his book Nihaayat al-Iqdaam (Cairo, no date, p.474): واعلم أن الإيمان له حقيقة والعمل له حقيقة غير الإيمان وخاطب في كم آية الفاسقين بخطاب المؤمنين يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تفعلوا كذا علم بذلك قطعاً أن الإيمان لو كان هو العمل بعينه أو كان العمل ركناً مقيماً بحقيقة الإيمان لما ميز بهذا التمييز And know that eemaan has a reality and action (amal) has a reality other than eemaan. And (He, Allaah) addressed the sinners in how many verses with the address of the Believers, "O you who believe, do not do such and such...", and it is known through this definitively that had eemaan been action (amal) itself, or had action been a pillar (rukn) that is established with the reality of eemaan, then it would not have been distinguished with this differentiation (i.e. amal distinguished from eemaan) These are some sample quotes and the position of these people (Maturidiyyah, Ahl al-Kalaam) can be summarized as follows: They hold that amal (action) in its genus, in principle, is not and cannot be from the essence, or be a part of eemaan. That if action is treated as a part (juz) or pillar (rukn) of eemaan it necessitates the madhhab of the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah. Upon this, the Ahl al-Kalaam in general have a certain perception towards the view of Ahl al-Sunnah that action is a pillar in eemaan, and a good way to illustrate this is to take a look at what Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606H) says in his book Manaaqib al-Imaam al-Shaafi'ee (1406, tahqeeq al-Saqqaa, p. 146) In this quote al-Razi is outlining the criticism of the Ahl al-Kalam (Ash'aris, including Maturidis) against the position of al-Shafi'i regarding amal (action) being from the musammaa (meaning) of eemaan. So he says: And know that the people (i.e. Ahl al-Kalaam) corroborate a fault (for al-Shafi'ee) from another angle, so they say: It is established in elementary reason (in the minds of people) that the musammaa (meaning, essence) of a thing, when it is made up of numerous things, then when one of those things is lost, the musammaa (meaning, essence) must necessarily be lost. Hence, if action was a part (juz') of eemaan, then with the loss of action it would be obligatory that eemaan no longer remains. However al-Shaafi'ee says, "Action enters into the musammaa of eemaan" but then he says, "Eemaan remains alongside the loss of action" so this is a contradiction. This is an extremely important quote so pay attention to it. Especially the bolded part. Remember, Ahl al-Sunnah say that all the afraad of the outward actions enter into eemaan and are from its reality and are part of it, and thus they do not treat eemaan as a single entity. Hence, the presence and absence of these actions cause the increase and decrease of eemaan. But the Murji'ah (who deny the rukniyyah of amal) cannot understand this, as they only see the view of the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij that if something of action is missing, all of eemaan therefore must be missing because they only see eemaan as in indivisible whole. To the Murji'ah, they say that action (in principle, in its genus) is only a perfection of eemaan, and what they mean here is based upon their position that amal (in its genus, in principle) is not from the essence (musammaa) of eemaan, nor a part of it, and hence it is only from mukammalaat of eemaan. Thus, eemaan itself cannot increase nor decrease. And they held this view upon their mistaken notion that if you enter action as a pillar or part of eemaan, you are forced to enter the creed of the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij, because if something of it goes, the musammaa (essence, meaning) of eemaan can no longer be said to remain or exist, and all of it must go. Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar and Shaykh al-Albaanee intended refutation of the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij and we shall look at them next. Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar and Shaykh al-Albaanee In contrast to these people (the Murji'ah), let us look at what Ibn Hajar outlined and he was followed in this by Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah), and we will see the difference between the two sayings in reality. You can refer to the earlier quotes from Ibn Hajar (through Kandu and his Master's thesis) where Ibn Hajar supports and brings evidence for the view that actions enter into the musammaa of eemaan along with tasdeeq, and he supports the view of the Salaf that eemaan is belief, speech and action and that it increases and decreases. Ibn Hajar explained the difference between the view of the Mut'azilah and that of the Salaf. So he said: فالسلف قالوا: هو اعتقاد بالقلب، ونطق باللسان، وعمل بالأركان.وأرادوا بذلك أن الأعمال شرط في كماله.ومن هنا نشأ ثم القول بالزيادة والنقص كما سيأتي.والمرجئة قالوا: هو اعتقاد ونطق فقط.والكرامية قالوا: هو نطق فقط.والمعتزلة قالوا: هو العمل والنطق والاعتقاد.والفارق بينهم وبين السلف أنهم جعلوا الأعمال شرطا في صحته.والسلف جعلوها شرطا في كماله So the Salaf say: Eemaan is ‘aqeedah in the heart, statement of the tongue and action of the limbs. They mean by this that actions (a'maal) are a condition for its completeness. So from here comes their saying that it increases and decreases — as will follow. The Murji’ah say: ‘It is ‘aqeedah and statement of the tongue only.’ The Karraamiyyah say: ‘It is statement of the tongue only.’ And the Mu’tazilah say: ‘It is action, statement and ‘aqeedah.’ But the difference between the Mu’tazilah and the Salaf is that the Mu’tazilah make actions a condition for the correctness of eemaan, whereas the Salaf make them a condition for its completeness Here Ibn Hajar is speaking of the the afraad (individual) of the a'maal (actions) [whereas the Murji'ah as we have seen from the Maturidiyyah, they are speaking of action in principle, in its genus, and they deny action (amal) is a pillar or a part of eemaan]. Now if we assume the view that abandoning prayer is not major kufr (upon the view of those scholars who hold this), we can say: A person who has tasdeeq and i'tiqaad in his heart, and has expressed with his tongue and is bringing at least something of the actions outwardly (as a validation of the eemaan that is in his heart), if he was to abandon the prayer for example (out of laziness and neglect) it would not invalidate his eemaan (to those who hold this view). Likewise, if he was to abandon any other action (zakah, or fasting, or not stealing or not drinking), it would not invalidate his eemaan. If we were to take each action individually like this, we can say that each action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan (alongside our observation about this terminology, as has preceded), because abandoning these actions (individually) does not invalidate eemaan (unlike what the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij say), but is a sin that necessitates decrease in eemaan. The intent here is to refute the Mu'azilah and the Khawaaarij, and what is more important here is what is intended behind the actual terms being used (shart kamaal, shart sihhah) to point out this difference. This is what Ibn Hajar intends when he says: والمعتزلة قالوا: هو العمل والنطق والاعتقاد.والفارق بينهم وبين السلف أنهم جعلوا الأعمال شرطا في صحته.والسلف جعلوها شرطا في كماله And the Mu’tazilah say: ‘It is action, statement and ‘aqeedah.’ But the difference between the Mu’tazilah and the Salaf is that the Mu’tazilah make actions a condition for the correctness of eemaan, whereas the Salaf make them a condition for its completeness As has preceded, the criticism upon this is that he has made a generalization which is not accurate or correct. The Mu'tazilah do not say all actions are a condition for the validity of eemaan, just those whose abandonment is a major sin, and likewise the Salaf do not say the abandonment of all actions amounts only to major sin, rather amongst them are those who hold abandonment of prayer to invalidate eemaan, hence it becomes shart sihhah (upon this terminology which is used by al-Shibal, al-Barraak, Ibn al-Uthaymeen and others - refer to quotes above). This is very different to what the Maturidiyyah, followers of the Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa say, in that action cannot be from eemaan, otherwise it necessitates the madhhab of the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij, and hence, when these Maturidiyyah write in their books, statements like: عمل الجوارح من كمال الإيمان لا أنه جزء من ماهية الإيمان لئلا يلزم الانزلاق إلى مذهب المعتزلة أو الخوارج ... the action of the limbs is from the perfection of eemaan but not a juz (part) of eemaan... As is said by al-Kawtharee as quoted earlier, then these are the ones who are intended in the refutation of the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah who say that the one who says action (amal) as in its genus, in principle, is only a condition for the perfection of eemaan, or is only from the perfection of eemaan, (and is not a rukn or juz'), is from the Murji'ah. As for the one who says frorm Ahl al-Sunnah, upon the view that abandoning prayer is not major kufr, that the a'maal (as in the afraad, individual actions on their own) are a condition for the perfection, or that some of them are a condition for the perfection (for those who the treat the prayer as shart sihhah), whilst amal (in its genus) is a rukn and juz' of eemaan and enters into the musammaa of eemaan (which is affirmed by both Ibn Hajar and al-Albani), then they are not from the Murji'ah even if some of the Scholars make observations on the terms and phrases they used. The issue then becomes one of what did they intend by these statements and phrases (which have ambiguity) - and so it becomes similar to terms "jism" and "hayyiz", and "makaan", in that we investigate what a person means, corroborate the true meaning and avoid the usage of the ambiguous phrases. Remarks of the Scholars Upon the Statement of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (and Shaykh al-Albani) From the above, (when we look at what the Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa say and what Ibn Hajar and al-Albani said), there is a degree of ambiguity in the statement of Ibn Hajar (and likewise al-Albani), even if they intend something different to what the Murij'ah intend. For Ibn Hajar and al-Albani intend refutation of the Mu'tazilah from the angle of the afraad (individual) of the actions, whilst affirming the rukniyyah and juz'iyyah of action in its genus, with respect to eemaan (and that it increases and decreases). The error is in the generalization, as I acknowledged and affirmed in the very first post in this thread. Whereas when we look at the likes of al-Kawtharee and others who represent the Maturidiyyah, Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa, they oppose the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij by denying the very rukniyyah and juz'iyyah of actions with respect to eemaan (being a pillar or part of eemaan), and treat action in its genus, as only a completion of eemaan (as in something additional to eemaan, that completes it) and not from eemaan itself (and thus eemaan itself, in its essence, does not increase or decrease). When we understand the above, we will understand more clearly the criticisms and refutations of our Scholars of the Sunnah against the Murji'at ul-Fuquhaa and also their remarks upon the statement of Ibn Hajar (and likewise al-Albaani).

[Abu.Iyaad]

Musa Millington has written a follow up (12 pages, PDF) which I read this afternoon, a few hours ago, and it is clear to me that he is acting dishonestly. I will illustrate his dishonesty in this post inshaa'Allaah. Before proceeding, I suggest the reader go back to post no. 4 above and read it fully, then to come back here (the blatant lies will be more obvious then). Musa Millington and the Use of the Word Shart (Condition) After I wrote my first post in this thread (exposing the dishonesty and deception of Abu Fujoor), Musa Millington put up a post on the TriniMuslims website. This was the post I addressed in detail in post no. 4 above.This is a quote from that post of Musa (emphasis is mine): Hence, by not clarifying the statement of Ibn Hajar, although he put the speech of Imam Al Baghawi afterward which clarifies the belief of the Salaf, a person could have been misled into 'Irjaa without doubt since the average reader may deduct that actions is from Imaan however it is a condition which is in fact an oxymoron i.e a statement where there are two opposites. To explain this more clearly we all know that Wuduu is one of the conditions of prayer. If there is no Wuduu there is no prayer. However, the Wuduu itself is not part of the prayer but rather a pre-requisite that must be established before the prayer is done hence outside of it. Likewise, the one who says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan is like the one that says that actions are a pre-requisite for its completeness but not part of it. Take note of the following: First, Musa is actually addressing the word shart (condition) and its meaning in the language. Second, notice how he has illustrated the meaning of the word shart by giving the example of wudoo. Now, here is the question that Musa should really answer. Is wudoo a condition for the validity (sihhah) of the prayer or a condition for the perfection (kamaal) of the prayer? Of course it is a condition for the validity (sihhah) of the prayer! And we will give Musa credit that he is not going to tell us that praying without wudhoo makes the prayer lose its kamaal! Third, by giving this example (of wudhu), it is very clear that what Musa is really addressing is the meaning of the word shart and not so much as to whether it is being applied to the sihhah or kamaal of something. What are the implications of this? This is what I addressed in detail in post no. 4. I said that if you want to argue like this, (which Musa clearly is because he used the example of wudhu to illustrate the meaning of shart), it means you have to find fault with everyone who uses the word shart, whether it be to say a) that all actions are shart kamaal or b) all actions are shart sihhah, or even c) to make tafseel and say some are shart sihhah and some are shart kamaal. This is because if you are going to use the example of wudhu (which is shart sihhah for the prayer), clearly, your focus is not just on issues which constitute kamaal, rather your intent is to explain the reality of the word shart, irrespective of whether it is being applied to matters that are said to be from the sihhah of something or the kamaal of something. In reality, Musa messed up here, because it means that the issue is not Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani not making the tafseel (in applying shart kamaal and shart sihhah to actions in general), rather it is using the very terms in the first place (of shart kamaal and shart sihhah), there being no difference which one you use. Thus, even those Shaykhs who made tafseel of Ibn Hajar's kalaam and affirmed the use of shart sihhah and shart kamaal in that tafseel, they have also expelled actions from eemaan and agreed with the Murji'ah. And as such whatever Abu Fujoor wrote with respect to Ibn Hajar's kalaam using the tafseel of the Scholars who say that in reality only not all actions are shart kamaal, but some are shart sihhah, then even that tafseel does not exit from being Irjaa'. Hence, the point is that if you want to find Irjaa', you will find it in more places than just the kalaam of Ibn Hajar, if this is the way you want to argue (through the word shart and its meaning). You cannot insist that the generalization of Ibn Hajar is incorrect, from the angle that it is a generalization, and then affirm the clarification of those scholars who then go on to use the same terms except that they limit its use (shart kamaal) to everything except the prayer. Here, you are now being inconsistent in your entire positioning in this affair. Now, when Musaa made this post and I saw that he is not really grasping the underlying issues, I dealt with it in great depth in post no. 4, in my first response to him and from my statements (in post no. 4) was the following: Yes, we know the meaning of shart (شرط) is "that which is external to a thing and without which the thing cannot exist", this is the meaning of this word, and there are from the scholars who make this point that using the word "shart" is to be avoided when speaking about the topic of eemaan, but the fact is that many of the Major Scholars have used this word, as in shart kamaal and shart sihhah (for a particular objective), and thus in order to grasp this subject one has to be aware that it is largely a matter of understanding what a person intends behind these terms and what underlying usool he is operating from. Further, in post no. 4 above, I dealt with the specific issue of the use of the phrases shart kamaal and shart sihhah. I acknowledged and pointed out the incorrect generalization in Ibn Hajar's words (in applying the terms shart kamaal to the position of the Salaf and shart sihhah to the position of the Mu'tazilah), and I made the point that whilst we acknowledge the problem with the word shart, if you are going to make an issue of it (which Musa was doing by the fact that he used the example of wudhoo to illustrate), then it has to apply equally whether it is used for kamaal or for sihhah, and thus it is not just Ibn Hajar who is wrong who used it and generalized it for all actions, but also anyone who acknowledge the use of this word (shart) in relation to actions of sihhah and kamaal (even if they made tafseel in the affair). The very fact that Musa Millington used the example of wudhoo (which is shart sihhah) for the prayer shows that whatever I said and explained was accurate and highly relevant to the crux of the discussion. However, Musa did not see it, is not seeing it, and probably won't see it and he is simply attempting to cover for himself and not acknowledge the implications of what he wrote. I pointed out all these things in post no. 4. and explained that the issue largely comes down to what you intend and mean by these terms, because we see many of the scholars clearly using the term shart within the context of actions and eemaan (whether that be for its sihhah or kamaal). Musa is simply making a fake display of "my whole issue was with it being used unrestrictedly in eemaan and Amjad Rafeeq is fleeing from clarifying this and making the point something else." Musa must be blind if he claimed to read post no. 4 and then starts writing what he has written in his latest PDF and trying to escape with blatant lies. Illustrating Musa's Deception More Clearly So let us look at pages 3 and 4 where the main content of his 12 page PDF starts, to illustrate that he has not acted honestly and is telling lies (I will quote the two pages and then comment further below): POINT 1: Musa's claim: The usage of the word shart (شرط ) is not the issue of contention. Rather the issue of contention is the use of the word “shart” unrestrictedly as a component of the definition of Imaan. I never, in one paragraph or one word of my post discussed the issue of how the scholars used the word "shart" in specific instances. What blatant doublespeak and clear dishonesty, a blatant lie! Musa gave the definition and explanation of the word shart through the example of wudhu and the prayer. Wudhu is shart sihhah for the prayer (and not kamaal). He's clearly discussed how this word shart is used in a specific instance besides the issue of eemaan and is intending to put across its meaning in the language. The point that we take from this is that the problem with the word shart applies in all situations, a) whether you say all actions are shart kamaal, b) whether you say all actions are shart sihhah, c) or whether you make tafseel and say some actions are shart sihhah and some are shart kamaal. No matter which of these three statements we are dealing with, the problem is there, so long as the word shart is used. This would mean (upon Musa Millingtons's exlanation of shart) that if Shaykh Ibn Baz (or any other Salafi Shaykh) says that the prayer is shart sihhah for eemaan, then he has expelled prayer from eemaan just as Musa Millington uses the example of wudhu to show that it is a "shart" and is therefore outside of prayer and not from the prayer itself". This mistake of Musa in consistency is what I clarified this in detail in post no. 4 and I dealt with the whole complexity of these terms and I said that we have to be careful and really look at the actual intent of the scholars who use these terms and speak about matters appropriately, otherwise, we will start wronging people and attributing to them what they are free of. I also covered the problem of its unrestricted use in the generalization of Ibn Hajar's statement. Unfortunately, in this latest PDF cover-up, Musa is deliberately concealing all these things I clarified in detail in post no. 4. It is from honesty that you acknowledge the truth that your opponent has brought. I did it in my very first post when I explained that though Abu Fujoor is a dishonest liar, a dishonest liar can sometimes speak the truth and that there are indeed some observations on the statement of Ibn Hajar. That is right at the beginning of this thread. Just like in that very same first post, in POINT 4, I clarified the erroneous generalization in the statement of Ibn Hajar. However, Musa Millington is too cowardly to admit the truth of whatever I clarified and explained. It is Musa that is twisting things around and the poetry he quoted (...she accused me with her own iniquity, and slipped away..) actually applies to him not to me walhamdulillaah. POINT 2: Then a paragraph later Musa says (emphasis mine): It is therefore very important to understand how the word “shart” is used by the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. This will display to us that the issue of contention is not the usage of the word itself but rather its use unrestrictedly in the definition of Imaan. This is the second bold lie from Musa as a means of covering for himself and blunder he made in his original post on TriniMuslims, and it is another example of doublespeak. When you give the example of wudhoo and the prayer, then you are clearly speaking of the word itself (shart), since the example you gave is of a thing which is shart sihhah (i..e wudhoo). This means that whether you speak of something that relates to the sihhah (validity) of something else, or the kamaal (perfection) of something else, the issue revolves around the word shart, because the mere use of it means that you are speaking of something external to something else (be it shart sihhah or shart kamaal). Hence, thisi is just a smokescreen being used by Musa Millington and it shows that his statement, "This will display to us that the issue of contention is not the usage of the word itself but rather its use unrestrictedly in the definition of Imaan..." is meaningless empty speech. Of course, it has everything to do with the word itself! Have you already forgoten that you explained its meaning by using an example of an act that is shart sihhah for the prayer?! It is for this very reason, I addressed in detail the issue of the word shart, and its usage in the matters of eemaan, and I pointed out the problem with it in the view of some of the Scholars, and I said that since some scholars dislike its use and since other scholars clearly use it in order to make the tafseel in the matter of eemaan, we have to base things on the intent of the scholars who are using these terms, so that we do not make false accusations against anybody. Musa Millington is too cowardly to acknowledge that I already addressed all of this in detail in my posts and made the relevant clarifications. Instead, he has attempted to twist the realities and to cover for himself. This becomes even more clear when we see his comments on what he quotes next. POINT 3: What Musa does next is to quote something from Ibn Baz (rahimahullaah) through Shaykh Rabee' in which Ibn Baz uses the terms shart sihhah and shart kamaal and makes a tafseel on the issue and says the prayer is shart sihhah and other actions are shart kamaal. Take a look at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page of the scans I have included above. Musa says the following, after the quote from Ibn Baz (rahimahullaah): As everyone is able to see, the usage of Ibn Baaz regarding the word “shart” was detailed and he demonstrated that his use of this word was to show that some actions take away a person’s Imaan completely and some actions would make him a sinner whereas he would not have left Imaan . However, this is entirely different to the manner in which Imam Ibn Hajar used the word “shart” when he said: “So the Salaf say: Imaan is ‘Aqeedah in the heart, statements of the tongue, and actions of the limbs. They mean by this that actions are a condition (“shart”) for its completeness…” Notice that Ibn Hajar generalized the used of “shart” and Shaikh Ibn Baaz specified and explained the usage of the word “shart”. Hence, the issue of contention was not as Amjad Rafeeq imagined or wished to imagine... Allaahu Akbar, what a sneaky deceptive lie and blatant attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. This is outright misrepresentation and dishonesty on behalf of Musa. Let us take Musa out of his slumber! Musa Millington said in his post on TriniMuslims (emphasis mine): ...a person could have been misled into 'Irjaa without doubt since the average reader may deduct that actions is from Imaan however it is a condition which is in fact an oxymoron i.e a statement where there are two opposites. To explain this more clearly we all know that Wuduu is one of the conditions of prayer. If there is no Wuduu there is no prayer. However, the Wuduu itself is not part of the prayer but rather a pre-requisite that must be established before the prayer is done hence outside of it. Likewise, the one who says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan is like the one that says that actions are a pre-requisite for its completeness but not part of it. This is what brother Abu Fajr wanted to clarify... When you understand this, then it is meaningless for Musa Millington to try and pretend that his whole issue was not the word shart in and of itself but its unrestricted usage in the topic of eeman. Rather, this is a blatant contradiction and empty doublespeak! There are a further two issues here which show Musa's dishonesty: The first issue: In his original post on TriniMuslims, the first time he posted on this issue, Musa himself quoted me from my first post in this thread as saying the following (which is from the very first post in this thread): POINT 4: In the quote which I included from Ibn Hajar in the chapter there is an itlaaq (generalisation, absolution) in his explanation of the difference between the saying of the Salaf and the saying of the Mu'tazilah which is incorrect. So whilst Ibn Hajar correctly characterized the view of the Salaf that eemaan in the shari'ah is i'tiqaad, qawl and 'amal, he erred by implying that all action to the Mu'tazilah is shart sihhah and all action to the Salaf is shart kamaal. This is an error because from the actions are those which are mustahabb and waajib whose omission would not invalidate eemaan, thus, they cannot be considered to be shart sihhah (upon the understanding that these terms (shart kamaal, shart sihhah) are employed by some of the Scholars to speak of individual actions, whereas others say these terms are not to be used or employed). Likewise, the Mu'tazilah do not hold that all action is shart sihhah, rather it is only that which is a kabeerah (major sin) which they hold to be shart sihhah. Hence, the generalization made by Ibn Hajar is incorrect... I must ask Musa Millington, (after asking him to wake up and come around): What did I just address here in my first post in something which Musa himself quoted from me? What did I explain and clarify right at the very beginning? I've just clarified the generalization from Ibn Hajar! What does it tell you when Musa then says in attempting to cover himself: Notice that Ibn Hajar generalized the used of “shart” and Shaikh Ibn Baaz specified and explained the usage of the word “shart”. Hence, the issue of contention was not as Amjad Rafeeq imagined or wished to imagine... To make things worse, and Musa's lie and twisting of things even more serious, immediately after I stated the above in the very first post in this thread, I actually quoted al-Shibal making this same tafseel, acknowledging it. The author of al-Tanbeeh 'alaa al-Mukhaalafaat al-Aqadiyyah Fil-Fath al-Baaree (Dar al-Watan, 1422, p. 28) writes, commenting on Ibn Hajar's differentiation between the saying of the Salaf and that of the Mu'tazilah (and this book has taqreedh by the following Shaykhs, Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz, Salih al-Fawzan, Abdullah al-Aqil and Abdullah bin Manee'): الصواب أن الأعمال عند السلف الصالح: قد تكون شرطاً في صحة الإيمان، أي أنها من حقيقة الإيمان قد ينتفي الإيمان بانتفائها، كالصلاة. وقد تكون شرطاً في كماله الواجب فينقص الإيمان بانتفائها كبقية الأعمال التي تركها فسق ومعصية، وليس كفراً. فهذا التفصيل لابد منه لفهم قول السلف الصالح وعدم خلطه بقول الوعيدية. That which is correct is that actions to the Righteous Salaf can sometimes be a condition for the validity of eemaan, meaning that they are from its reality, eemaan can expire by the absence of these (actions), such as prayer. And they can sometimes be a condition for the obligatory perfection (of eemaan), like the rest of the actions whose abandonment is sinfulness and disobedience, but not disbelief. This tafseel (clarification) is necessary in order to understand the saying of the Righteous Salaf and not to mix their saying with the saying of the Wa'eediyyah (Mu'tazilah). And what makes this absolutely clear is that in that same very first post, I quoted from Kandu's Master's thesis where he stated the following: However, there remains an indication of an observation about what al-Haafidh mentioned about the intent of the Salaf behind the entrance of actions into the meaning of eemaan, when he said, "And they intended by this that actions are a condition for its perfection." This saying is not correct, for it is not preserved from any of the Salaf that they said this. Rather, the Salaf, when they mentioned action in the definition of eemaan, they intended [to say] that action is a part (juz') of eemaan, as is the reality of the eemaan in the usage of the Qur'an, for every application of the [word] eemaan in the Qur'an has been explained therein that a man does not become a believer except with action alongside belief (i'tiqaad) and tasdeeq. But this does not mean that eemaan cannot be attained by doing all of the action, rather a person can be a believer whilst falling short in some of the action and his eemaan decreases to the extent that his action decreases. This is in opposition to [the saying of] the Khawarij and the Mu'tazilah who say that all of eemaan disappears when something of action is missing built upon their corrupt foundation that eemaan is a single entity, when some of it goes, all of it goes. I cleared this issue up in my very first post. Then I spoke about this again and again, in detail in post 4. After all of this, Musa Millington is trying to pretend that I diverted away from addressing this issue, which is clear dishonesty, especially after he quoted me making the very clarification he is claiming that I am fleeing from! In short, Musa Millington tried to address the issue of "shart" in his first post on this matter. I then replied to him in detail (which is found in post no. 4) showing him the implications of what he wrote which he is not stomaching very well. I had already clarified the issue of Ibn Hajar's generalization in my first post, so that was dealt with and done. Now Musa is falsely claiming that I fled from the issue of discussing the use of the word shart in a generalized sense in the issue of eemaan despite Musa himself having already quoted my statement in his post on TriniMuslims clarifying the generalization in the statement of Ibn Hajar and despite me repeatedly mentioning and acknowledging the tafseel of the scholars in my posts in this thread. This is an example of very bad and stroppy lying. At least try to cover your tracks in a more professional way if you feel you need to lie and deceive! The second issue: The statement of Shaykh Bin Baz was mentioned by Shaykh Rabee' in the context of Shaykh Rabee' finding fault with the use of the words shart sihhah and shart kamaal, because Shaykh Bin Baz used them at times. This was the reason that Shaykh Rabee quoted that statement of Ibn Baz in the article. Shaykh Rabee' wrote that he used to warn from these statements before Shaykh al-Albani used them and that even Shaykh Ibn Baz used them as well at times, and despite the fact that those Shaykhs used these terms and that he (Shaykh Rabee') did not, rather he warned from them, the oppressive Haddaadiyyah still accused him of Irjaa' (as well as accusing Shaykh Bin Baz and Shaykh al-Albani). In light of this, go and take a look at the scan of the second page I have included in this post above, just after Musa quotes the statement of Shaykh Ibn Baz, and look at what Musa quoted from me which is highlighted in yellow, which he is criticizing. In that quote I said. This again illustrates that Musa Millington does not grasp the issues here. Since, the issue revolves around the word "shart" (condition) to Musa, then it makes no difference whether it is used for kamaal (perfection) or validity (sihhah) and Musa's observation should be applied equally to the issue of sihhah (validity), and his judgement should apply to all those Shaykhs who make use of this word (shart) in that which relates to the sihhah (validity) of eemaan. Since the mere use of the word shart means that the actions (whether their abandonment invalidates eemaan [like the prayer] or merely decreases its obligatory perfection) are outside of eemaan. Upon this, this means that all those scholars (including Ibn al-Uthaymeen, al-Shibal, al-Barraak and those scholars who endorsed the book of al-Shibal, like al-Fawzan, Ibn Baz etc. and likewise Shaykh al-Albani) have either endorsed statements or employed statements that expel actions from eemaan thereby constituting the propagation of Irjaa' (according to Musa Millington). This is the very point that Shaykh Rabee is hinting at himself, that both the use of shart sihhah and shart kamaal are to be avoided. I made this very point to Musa Millington before he even quoted Shaykh Rabee's speech in his 12 page PDF. The issue is really comes down to the word shart, since one can say that the prayer makes a person's eemaan valid, correct (saheeh) or that not lying or stealing and being righteous to one's parents makes one's eemaan complete (kaamil), this is fine, but when you add the word shart (condition), it becomes problematic, so the issue revolves around the word shart. This is what Shaykh Rabee' said after quoting from Ibn Baz (and his use of these terms): أقول: وهذا الذي نقوله دائماً، ونحض الناس على التمسك بقول السلف: "الإيمان قول وعمل واعتقاد، يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية". وذلك أنكم ترمون بالإرجاء وتحاربون من لا يقول العمل شرط كمال في الإيمان ويحذر من القول به، فكيف ينجو من حكمكم بالإرجاء على من يصرح به؟ فأي جريمة ترتكبونها في حق الإسلام وأهله. وأي أصل أخبث من هذا الأصل عندكم الذي يضلل به أئمة السنة مثل ابن باز والألباني وغيرهما. أقول: هذا مع أني حذرت من أن يقال العمل شرط صحة أو شرط كمال في الإيمان مراراً وتكراراً والاقتصار على تعريف السلف للإيمان بأنه "قول باللسان واعتقاد بالقلب وعمل بالأركان". I (Rabee') say: This is what we say always, we encourage the people to stick to the saying of the Salaf, "Eemaan is speech, action and belief, it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience". This is because you (Haddaadiyyah), you accuse with Irjaa' and make war against the one who does not even say that action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan and who warns from this saying (meaning himself, Rabee'), so how then will the one who says this (i.e. that actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan) be saved from your judgement of Irjaa' (upon him)? So what crime are you committing towards the right of Islaam and its people? And what foundation is more vile than this foundation by which you declare as misguided the Imaams of the Sunnah, such as Ibn Baaz and al-Albaani and others (i.e. with the accusation of Irjaa' because they made use of these phrases). I say this whilst I myself warned from that it be said "action is a condition for the validity (of eemaan)" or "action is a condition for the perfection (of eemaan)", repeatedly, again and again, and restricting oneself to the definition of the Salaf for eemaan in that it is, "Speech of the tongue, belief of the heart and acting with the pillars. So my point is that if you are going to take issue with the word shart (condition) you have to be consistent and apply it not just to matters which are from kamaal (perfection), but also to matters which are from sihhah (correctness, validity). So if Musa Millington uses the example of wudoo to illustrate the word shart, then it means Musa has to be consistent and say that anyone who says that prayer is shart sihhah for eemaan is essentially saying that prayer is not from eemaan, but is outside of eemaan. There is absolutely no difference between the two. Again, Musa is too cowardly to admit this and is blatantly lying when he says his issue was not about the word shart. And this was the point I was trying to get across to Musa which he clearly has not grasped. That either be consistent in what you are saying and find fault with anyone who uses the word shart (even if it be in matters that constitute the sihhah of eemaan, such as the prayer), or at least come to terms with the fact that some scholars have used these terms (shart kamaal and shart sihhah) and other scholars have disapproved of them, and so therefore we in our discussion have to be reasonable and careful in this issue and look at the actual intention of each scholar who used these terms and try to understand what is the view he is getting across rather than fixate on the terms he is employing for which he might even be criticized by others, otherwise we will become unjust and start accusing scholars of something they are free of (from them Ibn Hajar and al-Albani). This is what the Haddaadiyyah fell into (and they also monopolize on the sayings of some scholars to attack and harm others - which is why on their websites, you see them giving great attention to writing and compiling on these matters). POINT 4: What really seals off the deception of Musa Millington is the fact that the very point I made in post 4 above that the problem extends to the term "shart sihhah" and not just to "shart kamaal" and that just by making tafseel of the generalization in Ibn Hajar's statement you still have not escaped the problem of expelling actions from eemaan, Musa Millington went on to bring a quote from Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan in his PDF response to that particular post of mine. In this quote of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan, there occurs: وقوله:أن العمل قول وعمل واعتقاد،ثم يقول:إن العمل شرط في كمال الإيمان وصحته،هذا تناقض!!! ... فالإيمان قول وعمل واعتقاد،والعمل هو من الإيمان وهو الإيمان،وليس هو شرطا من شروط الإيمان وهو الإيمان، وليس هو شرطا من شروط صحة الإيمان أو شرط كمال أو غير ذلك من الأقوال التي يروجونها الآن، فالإيمان قول باللسان واعتقاد بالقلب وعمل بالجوارح وهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية And his saying: That [eemaan] is speech, action and belief, and then say that action is a condition for the perfection ((kamaal) of eemaan and it validity (sihhah), this is a contradiction. For eemaan iss speech, action and belief and action is from eemaan, and it is eemaan, and it is not a condition from the conditions of eemaan. It is eemaan. It is not a condition from the conditions of validity (sihhah) of eemaan or a condition of perfection or other than that from the sayings which they are spreading now. For eemaan is speech of the tongue, belief of the heart and action of the limbs and it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience. As I explained, if your criticism is going to be based around the word shart, then be consistent and don't contradict yourself by saying "Yes, the statement of Ibn Hajar needs tafseel" and then you make the tafseel using the very terms "shart sihhah" and "shart kamaal" which still does not make you escape from the very problem you are trying to criticize others for. I raised this point first when I saw Musa Millington explaining the word shart by giving the example of wudhoo. Now, in his 12 page PDF - after I explained all this in detail in post 4 in this thread - he is twisting things around, using empty doublespeak and trying make it look as if he is making the very point that I actually corrected him on first! By bringing these statements of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan and Shaykh Rabee', Musa Millington is only validating my criticism against him and his contradiction that I addressed in detail in post no. 4 in this thread. Except that he is trying to turn things around in order to cover himself and avoid facing the truth! Alhamdulillaah, the issue is very simple. Abu Fujoor is an established liar and slanderer, which is established without any doubt to the generality of the Salafis. He is not reliable in quoting, translating and honestly representing the writings and views of others. He slandered me and claimed I "propagated the aqeedah of the Ash'aris." I responded to his deception and lies (and his blatant concealment of the remaining content in the two-page chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah in which it is established that a) actions are a part of eemaan, and that b) eemaan is belief, speech and action and that c) eemaan increases and decreases in opposition to the groups of kalaam - through this, as al-Barbahaaree said, a person is free of Irjaa', its beginning and its end), and I acknowledged that there are observations on Ibn Hajar's speech, and I clarified and made those observations in the very first post in this thread, so the issue was done with. This is alongside the fact that the intent behind the chapter itself was merely to include quotes from scholars who stated the ijmaa' of the Salaf that eemaan is aqeedah or i'tiqaad (using those words specifically) in addition to qawl and amal, as a means of refuting those contemporary Mu'tazilah who claim you can have eemaan in something without having aqeedah in it. When the plot failed - which was not really about correcting mistakes or pointing out ambiguities but more about takalluf and ta'aalum and attacking and discrediting anyone associated with Maktabah Salafiyyah due to wider agendas, because that is the general pattern here - Musa Millington came to defend the action of Abu Fujoor and in the process he put in his two cents, blatantly ignoring Abu Fujoor's dishonesty and deception, and making not even a whimper of it. So in his post he spoke of the issue of shart, giving the example of wudhoo being a shart for the prayer, and hence being outside of the prayer and not from it. This undermined the very purpose of Abu Fujoor's initial clarification. When I addressed Musa's post and in particular the whole issue of the word shart (condition) as it relates to its use in the matter of eemaan and in the speech of the scholars he decided to deceive the people in his latest PDF and turn the realities around by making blatant lies. From these blatant lies are a) his claim that I was trying to divert the issue of the use of the word shart unrestrictedly in the subject of eemaan to just discussing the word shart (which is deceptive empty doublespeak)! and b) that I failed to address the real issue of the generalization in Ibn Hajar's statement, whereas I addressed it numerous times in my very first post (in this thread). Indeed, justice is rare to find!