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

[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: 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.