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

[Abu.Ubayd.Zayd.Gripshi]

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




This translates as:

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

We say to him: the Companions (radiallaahu anhum) are more noble than you, more knowledgeable than you, and more eager than you for goodness. And they did not ask the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) this question. Therefore, what suffices them suffices you.

When evidence shows a person leaves Islam by this action then it becomes a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan. And when evidence shows that he does not exit (Islaam) it becomes a condition of the perfection (kamaal) of eemaan. The topic has ended.

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

For this reason, my counsel to the youth and students of knowledge is that you leave investigation of this matter, and that we say: What Allaah, the Exalted and His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) have made a condition for the validity of eemaan and its remaining, then it is condition, and whatever has not [been made a condition], then no, [and through this] we settle the matter.

Source: http://www.themadkhalis.com/md/artic...ian-menace.cfm

[Abu.Iyaad]

JazaakAllaahu khayran akh Abu Ubayd, for posting this statement of Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah), I myself translated this speech over a year and a half ago, just as I have translated other material related to this very matter over the years and w.hich in fact I clarified over a decade ago in detail in numerous articles in that these terms shart sihhah and shart kamaal are ambiguous terms and we investigate the intent of those who use them, whilst acknowledging they are ambiguous and should be avoided. Great Insight From and the Realities Explained by Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab al-Aqeel (hafidhahullaah) stated in a short risaalah of his (مسألة العذر بالجهل إنما تورد لتفريق أهل السنة والله الذي لا اله غيره) discussing the issue of al-udhru bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance) and the reasons for the controversy in this particular matter, he states at the end of the risaalah: فهذا ملخص هذه المسألة , فهذه المسألة لها نظائر, مثل : الأعمال شرط كمال أو شرط صحة ؟ هذه أختها, لا نقول شرط كمال ولا شرط صحة, نقول الأعمال من الإيمان ,لكن لا نشدد على سلفي قال شرط كمال أو شرط صحة ,فهذا له سلف وهذا له سلف. أقول هذه المسألة لها نظائر لأنها إنما تورد لتفريق أهل السنة والله الذي لا اله غير, العذر بالجهل والأعمال شرط كمال أو شرط صحة ونحوها من المسائل فإنما تورد لا لشيء إلا ليفرقوا بين السلفيين ,وفعلا فرقوا استطاعوا أن يضربوا السلفيين بعضهم ببعض بقوة, حتى إلى التبديع بل إلى التكفير . This is a summary of this issue (of the excuse of ignorance), and this issue has equivalent issues (that are like it) for example, "actions are a condition for perfection (kamaal) or a condition for validity (sihhah)", this (issue) is a sister-issue (to the issue of the excuse of ignorance). We do not say "shart kamaal" nor do we say "shart sihhah", we say "actions are from eemaan". However we do not show severity upon a Salafi who says, "shart kamaal" or "shart sihhah." For this one (in saying shart kamaal) has a salaf (a precedence) and that one (in saying shart sihhah) also has a salaf (a precedence). I say that this matter (of the excuse of ignorance) has other equivalent issues, because they are propagated in order to bring about separation between Ahl al-Sunnah, and by Allaah besides whom there is none worthy of worship besides Him, al-udhru bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance) and al-a'maal shart kamaal or shart sihhah (actions being a condition for the perfection or validity [of eemaan]) and what is like them from the issues, then verily they are propagated for no reason except to split the Salafis. And in practically, they have split them. They tried to strike the Salafis, some of them against others, with strength, until reaching tabdee' (declaring as innovators), rather reaching takfir... This has to be one of the most precious statements and there are many important implications and lessons from it. I think to seal this thread with these lessons and benefits would be a nice way to expose these people such as Abu Fujoor and Musa Millington who are practically following the way of the Haddaadiyyah in stoking up certain issues in order to malign and attack the Salafi callers because of personal agendas, despite those Salafis being free and innocent of the accusations made against them. POINT 1: The issue of shart kamaal and shart sihhah is largely an issue of what a person intends by the use of these terms and the sayings of the scholars vary regarding it. On account of the complexity of this issue and the fact that there can be found diversity in the sayings of the scholars, the Haddaadiyyah, and those who follow their traits and characteristics employ this issue in order harm and split the Salafis and to attack the Scholars and the Callers and accuse them of what they are free and innocent of. Shaykh Rabee has written numerous times about this (refer to his statement quoted in post no.7 in this thread, towards the end). POINT 2: I will now elaborate upon the nature of the difference and explain the various usages and positions. We can do this very effectively by starting this off with a quote fromm Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen who said (in his Sharh al-Arba'een al-Nawawiyyah, already cited previously): When evidence shows a person leaves Islam by this action then it becomes a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan. And when evidence shows that he does not exit (Islaam) it becomes a condition of the perfection (kamaal) of eemaan. The topic has ended. Upon this, there are some scholars for whom the evidence is not established that abandoning the prayer invalidates eemaan. This is a fiqh issue and is a difference of opinion. Built upon this, to these scholars the prayer, fasting, zakah, hajj (so long as their obligation is affirmed) and all the other actions individually, if they are abandoned, do not cause eemaan to be invalidated (even though it is decreased). These scholars say that the actions (individually) therefore are a "shart kamaal lil-eemaan" (condition for the perfection of eemaan) and their intent is two-fold: a) To show that nothing of the individually commanded righteous actions invalidate eemaan if iit is abandoned and b) to oppose the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij who say eemaan has been invalidated by the abandonment of individually commanded actions. If this is what they intend, then to say "actions are shart kamaal" is acceptable upon what they intend by the phrase when these same scholars affirm that a) actions are from the essence of eemaan, b) that eemaan is belief speech and action and c) eemaan increases and decreases and d) refute the Murji'ah for expelling actions from eemaan. And those who criticize this saying do so on the basis that this generalization is incorrect because of the issue of prayer whose abandonment they consider to be kufr (and they may include actions which require tark [abandonment] such as abandoning mocking the religion, and not committing shirk and etc.) It is vital to note that the entire discussion here is centered around a'maal (actions) individually, as in the afraad (individual instances) of the actions making up eemaan. It is not centered around the genus of action (meaning, action in principle). Built upon this, naturally we will see that there will be two views: a) Those Scholars who hold abandoning prayer does not invalidate eemaan. Thus, they will say actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan. b) Those Scholars who hold abandoning prayer invalidates eemaan. They will say not all actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan, rather some are a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan. They may criticize the first group for making a generalization that is inaccurate. In reality, the only thing that separates these two groups is their opinion on the abandonment of the prayer, not the actual issue of employing and using these terms. From here we understand the nature of the criticism on the speech of Ibn Hajar where he said: But the difference between the Mu’tazilah and the Salaf is that the Mu’tazilah make actions a condition for the correctness of eemaan, whereas the Salaf make them a condition for its completeness The criticism is that this is not accurate because from Ahl al-Sunnah are those who say prayer invalidates eemaan and likewise the Mu'tazilah do not invalidate eemaan on the basis of every action, but on those actions whose abandonment necessitates major sin. The mistake here is an incorrect generalization due to failing to note that a) Ahl al-Sunnah differ on the issue of the prayer, hence the Salaf are not agreed that all actions are shart kamaal and b) the Mu'tazilah do not invalidate eemaan on account of abandonment of every action (because there are some which are mustahabb for example). Putting this generalization to one side, all of the Scholars here in the first two groups are speaking of the individual actions using the terms "shart kamaal" and are speaking in the context of refuting and opposing the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij and contrasting the position of Ahl al-Sunnah with that of those went to one extreme in the topic of eemaan by expelling Muslims from the religion because they left off something of the individual branches of the outward eeman. All of this is in stark contrast to the Murji'ah (from the Maturidiyyah who follow the Murji'at al-Fuquhaa) who say eemaan is only tasdeeq (inward belief) and iqraar (on the tongue) and that outward actions are not a part of or a pillar of eemaan. Upon this baatil belief, they say that actions are therefore only a fruit, or an evidence for, or completion of eemaan (without actually being from it) and some of them from the contemporaries use the expression "shart kamaal". It is vital to understand here that these scholars who (use the term shart kamaal) are speaking in the context of the individual actions (a'maal) after affirming the rukniyyah and juz''iyyah of amal in its genus (in principle) and they are contrasting the aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah with that of the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij as it pertains to when and on account of what a person leaves Islaam, when he leaves some of the individual branches of eemaan. So far we have dealt with two groups and two positions: There is another group who says: "Action (al-amal) is a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan" (shart sihhah lil-eemaan), and as I explained above, this is the view of Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalee and Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghudayaan (and others). They say that action is a condition of the validity (sihhah) of eemaan and that this saying is the view of Ahl al-Sunnah and what they really mean here is that action is a rukn (pillar) and juz'' (part) of eemaan, and they are speaking here of the genus of action (as in, action in principle). They also say that anyone who says "action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan" is a Murji' and upon Irjaa' and they are speaking here of anyone who does not affirm that action is a rukn or juz'' (in its genus). This applies in reality to the Maturidiyyah, Murji'at al-Fuquhaa who are upon this (they deny action is from eemaan in their misguided attempt to flee from the saying of the Khawaarij and Mu'tazilah) and not to those from Ahl al-Sunnah who hold that the prayer does not invalidate eemaan and thus all individual actions are "a condition for the perfection of eemaan" in the sense that if any particular individual outward branch of eeman is abandoned, it would not expel a person from eemaan totally. So what do we have so far? a) Those who say all actions (individually) are a condition for the perfection of eemaan (they are refuting the Mut'azilah and Khawaarij). b) Those who say that some actions are shart sihhah and some action are shart kamaal (because they hold that abandoning prayer invalidates eemaan) and they are also clarifying the view of Ahl al-Sunnah from that of the Mu'tazilah and Khawarij. The only difference between them and the first group is that they make the prayer shart sihhah. c) Those who say that action (in its genus) is a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan and that any other saying is Irjaa'. They are refuting the Murji'ah who deny the rukniyyah and juz'iyyah of eeman. But then we have another group of Scholars: d) Those who hold that anyone who says action is a condition for the perfection (kamaal) or validity (sihhah) has expelled actions from eemaan and is from the Murji'ah or has agreed with the Murji'ah (irrespective of whether he says actions are shart kamaal or actions are shart sihhah). Also, that whoever says action is from eemaan and then says "shart kamaal" or "shart sihhah" falls into contradiction. This is found with Shaykh Abd al-Azeez al-Raajihee and Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan. POINT 3: From all of this we gather therefore, that there is some ambiguity in all of this and so the matter is not as simple and straightforward and is exactly as Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel has pointed out and we have to investigate and see what is the intent behind the usage of these words rather than fixate on the terms themselves and start accusing others of that which they are free of based upon these terms (even if we accept that the expresssion itself can be considered erroneous, despite a correct meaning being intended). Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul said in Sharh Sifat al-Salah lil-Shaykh al-Albani (see here) والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها؛فإن أراد من قال: الأعمال شرط كمال، أن التقصير في العمل سبب في نقص الإيمان، فهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية، وقد ينقص حتى يزول إذا ترك العمل بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع، فهذا معنى قول أهل السنة والجماعة، ولكن الخطأ في العبارة!وإن أراد أن الإيمان يثبت في أصله بغير عمل، وأن العمل ليس من حقيقة الإيمان، فهذا قول المرجئة And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "Actions are shart kamaal" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression. And if he intended that eemaan can be established in its foundation (asl) without any action, and that action is not from the reality of eemaan, then this is the sayig of the Murji'ah. Shaykh Rabee's Exposition of the Haddaadiyyah's Use of These Issues to Create Fitnah Amongst the Salafis Shaykh Rabee' has numerous articles (http://rabee.net) in refutation of Falih al-Harbee and Fawzee al-Bahrainee who were using the statements of some of the Scholars in order to lay the accusation of Irjaa' against other scholars, from them Shaykh Ibn Baaz, and Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Rabee' himself. This is not far off from what Abu Fujoor, the faajir kadhdhab has attempted with me, and he is now supported in this disgrace by Musa Millington and the team that is working together for this purpose, revealing that they have Haddaadi traits. As for Faalih al-Harbee and Fawzee al-Bahrainee, they were employing the position of some of the scholars that "action is shart sihhah for eemaan" to ascribe Irjaa' to anyone who did not use this statement, but rather who said that some actions are shart kamaal and some are shart sihhah or who said that actions (individually) are shart kamaal as is the view of Shaykh al-Albaani. Shaykh Rabee' points out that these Haddaadis employed this issue to attack himself (by blatantly lying upon Shaykh Rabee) and also Shaykhs Ibn Baz and al-Albani (who employed the term of shart kamaal) and that they were also attempting to attack Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen for the same reasons. You can read about some of that here and in numerous other articles the Shaykh has written. This helps us to put into context the activities of Abu Fujoor, the faajir kadhdhaab and those who are supporting this immature child in his disgraceful oppression and mischief, from them Musa Millington, and there are also hidden hands who are helping to write all these PDF refutations (in desperation) after their initial plot failed miserably and was exposed. Exposing the Deception, Dishonesty, Ignorance and Pretence of Abu Fujoor, Musa Millington and Their Following of the Ways of the Haddaadiyyah As Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab al-Aqeel pointed out at the beginning, the issue of shart kamaal and shart sihhah is one of those issues which are employed to attack Salafis and to create fitnah and separation, despite the fact that this is not a matter where severity is shown for the very reasons that should now become clear from what I have explained and which should have been clear from whatever I have explained in this thread numerous times: Which is that all these expressions and terms are used by the scholars to intend different things: 1) at one time intending opposition to the Mu'tazilah, 2) at another time intending opposition to the Murji'ah, 3) at one time intending the genus of action and 4) at another time intending actions in their afraad (individual instances) and 5) at another time intending to show the talaazum (binding link) between the inward and outward and 6) at another time intending to show that the absence of a part of eemaan does not necessitate the disappearance of all of it. For that reason, one has to be careful in how he uses the critiques of some scholars against the statements of others, so as not to wrong or oppress anyone (alongside our agreement that expressions in themselves can be judged to be erroneous and problematic, and thus best avoided). Note: There are those who grasp, fathom and understand this crucial matter and there are those who frrom their ignorance do not, and as a result they create mischief and fall into oppression and injustice with their ta'aalum (fake scholarship). Abu Fujoor and Musa Millington and others are upon this way in using such an issue to create fitnah and they have a history of using these types of issues. In the past they used the issue of donation boxes in mosques, and the use of video for purposes of da'wah, and walhamdulillaah, they were exposed for that too. This issue of eemaan has been one of the grazing pastures of the Haddaadiyyah and this is why they picked on this issue because it is one where you can quite easily pick out some statements of some of the Scholars which contains criticism and make it appear that someone is promoting misguidance. And as the issue is complex and requires much study, the audience who does not have time for that will believe and take everything at face value as it has been spread. So for example, from what has preceded in this thread, it is very possible for a person to take the statement of Shaykh al-Raajihee and that of Shaykh al-Fawzaan and start accusing those scholars who said "action is shart sihhah for eemaan" of expelling actions from eemaan and being from the Murji'ah and opposing the usool of Ahl al-Sunnah, just like you can also accuse those who use both the terms shart kamal and shart sihhah, even if they made tafseel (saying some actions are shart sihhah and some are shart kamaal) of expelling actions from eemaan. To monopolize on the nature of this subject was the intent of Abu Fujoor al-Kadhdhaab, but walhamdulillaah it failed and was exposed quickly. So what happened as has preceded is that Abu Fujoor is an insecure child, his adaalah has been battered and killed and the only thing left is a corpse that keeps coming back every time its adaalah is slaughtered and diminished each time, the aim each time being "let me throw things at the Salafi callers to undermine them so that I can look good and polish up my own bruised image" alongside his knowledge that the generality of the Salafis and even some of those who associated with him know that he is a kadhdhaab, affaak (great slandering liar), untrustworthy and unreliable in what he narrates, arrogant in accepting his mistakes and iniquities and what he did with our brother Abdulilah Lahmami is the perfect example of that. When he sent out his 8 page PDF on the 6th of March, as I explained in the first post (7th March) in this thread, he deliberately concealed the rest of the two page chapter in order to allow him to create his mischief. In that two-page chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah, I established that a) action is from eemaan, b) that the legislative meaning of eemaan with the Salaf is belief, speech and action and c) that eemaan increases and decreases in opposition to the view of the groups of kalaam. In my first post in refutation of the deception of Abu Fujoor I addressed everything there was to address: a) the linguistic definition of eemaan given by Ibn Hajar, b) the generalization made by Ibn Hajar and c) the use of the phrase "actions are shart kamaal". I addressed all these three issues in my very first post and the matter was finished, clarified and done walhamdulillaah, and thus there was nothing left, the matter was dead. Then Musa Milllington came along to give support to his associate who had been exposed and after misunderstanding the clear intent behind one of my paragraphs, he raised the issue of the word shart (condition) and said that this needs to be clarified further (despite the fact that I'd already clarified it in my first post from the citations from Muhammad Ishaq Kandu's Masters thesis). Musa said: Hence, by not clarifying the statement of Ibn Hajar, although he put the speech of Imam Al Baghawi afterward which clarifies the belief of the Salaf, a person could have been misled into 'Irjaa without doubt since the average reader may deduct that actions is from Imaan however it is a condition which is in fact an oxymoron i.e a statement where there are two opposites. To explain this more clearly we all know that Wuduu is one of the conditions of prayer. If there is no Wuduu there is no prayer. However, the Wuduu itself is not part of the prayer but rather a pre-requisite that must be established before the prayer is done hence outside of it . Likewise, the one who says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan is like the one that says that actions are a pre-requisite for its completeness but not part of it. Right here, Musa Millington underrmined what Abu Fujoor wrote and put a question mark over the very quotes Abu Fujoor brought (in his 8 page PDF) from the scholars who made tafseel of the speech of Ibn Hajar by affirming and using the very same terms (shart kamaal and shart sihhah). This is because, if you are going to use the example of wudhoo to explain the word shart (condition), and wudhoo is shart sihhah and is outside of the prayer, it means that: a) despite attempting to criticize me on account of Ibn Hajar's statement (and that's after deliberately concealing the other content I included in the chapter which establishes the position of the Salaf), b) and slandering me by claiming I propagated the aqeedah of the Asharis and c) and demanding that tafseel be made of Ibn Hajar's speech, All you have achieved is to criticize what you deem to be Irjaa' or hinting at Irjaa' (i.e. the statement of Ibn Hajar) with statements and clarifications which are also Irjaa' (upon Millington's explanation of the word shart). Because anyone who says "prayer is a shart sihhah for eemaan" then he has expelled prayer from eemaan, just like wudhoo is shart sihhah for prayer and is outside of prayer, and not from it. Thus it becomes meaningless to take an issue with the speech of Ibn Hajr which made Abu Fujoor's initial so-called clarification pointless and meaningless. They clearly had not thought this thing out properly. This proved to me that these people do not really grasp this issue and do not understand its intricacies and are being inconsistent without even realising it, and since their intention is not good and wholesome, they are tripping up. The crucial point I made all along was this: Either be consistent and accuse every scholar who uses the term shart sihhah to either the whole of action or to just a part of it (like the prayer) of expelling action from eemaan and thereby agreeing with the Murji'ah and being from them. As a result of which saying that Ibn Hajr's generalization needed to be clarified becomes absolutely meaningless if you are going to affirm the tafseel of those scholars who said some actions are shart kamaal and some actions are shart sihhah. You have not escaped the very problem you were claiming to correct, because even with this tafseel, you still have not escaped Irjaa'! Or come to your senses and acknowledge what I am saying which is that we have to really look at the intent of each Scholar who is using these terms and phrases and we have to be mature and reasonable when we look at the criticisms of other scholars (like Ibn Baz and al-Fawzan) of these terms, and we have to be reasonable and mature by investigating what does each scholar intend by them and be careful in applying the rulings of other scholars to the statements of others and not start throwing the accusations of Irjaa' with such ease because you will end up slandering someone. Musa Millington's Twisting of the Realities and Attempt to Cover Himself When I wrote on this matter in detail in post no 4 (10th March) and explained this important issue, it did not please Musa Millington (in fact I question whether he even understood it). A day later (11th March) he released his 12-page refutation upon me. In this 12-page PDF he brought quotes from Shaykh Rabee' and Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan who made the very point that I was making and which I explained a day earlier - that it is wrong to use the term shart sihhah, that this is a contradiction, and that it cannot be said that actions are either a condition from the conditions of sihhah or a condition from the conditions of kamaal. Because Musa had messed up and showed his inconsistency and not realising the implications of what he wrote regarding the example of wudhoo being shart sihhah, he tried to cover this up by bringing the statements from these Shaykhs in his response to me which essentially outline the very point I made to him and which everyone can read for themselves in post no 4 and which I repeated again and again. Through that 12-page PDF he tried to pretend to make the very point that I was explaining to him all along and twist the tables and make it look as if I was the one who was not clarifying things! This what I wrote in that post on 10th March when I pointed out the confusion in his mind: This again illustrates that Musa Millington does not grasp the issues here. Since, the issue revolves around the word "shart" (condition) to Musa, then it makes no difference whether it is used for kamaal (perfection) or validity (sihhah) and Musa's observation should be applied equally to the issue of sihhah (validity), and his judgement should apply to all those Shaykhs who make use of this word (shart) in that which relates to the sihhah (validity) of eemaan. Since the mere use of the word shart means that the actions (whether their abandonment invalidates eemaan [like the prayer] or merely decreases its obligatory perfection) are outside of eemaan. Upon this, this means that all those scholars (including Ibn al-Uthaymeen, al-Shibal, al-Barraak and those scholars who endorsed the book of al-Shibal, like al-Fawzan, Ibn Baz etc. and likewise Shaykh al-Albani) have either endorsed statements or employed statements that expel actions from eemaan thereby constituting the propagation of Irjaa' (according to Musa Millington). But as I said this is a topic which is subtle and complex and it largely comes down to what the intent and objective is behind the usage of certain terms in the statements of the Scholars and which are to be understood in light of the underlying usool those scholars affirm in this particular topic of eemaan. We see that the scholars use the terms shart kamaal and shart sihhah for a particular objective with it being understood already that Ahl al-Sunnah hold actions are from and are part of eemaan. And there are some scholars who do not like the use of the word shart in this topic. It is really here that the Haddaadiyyah fell into ghuluww and in their claim of trying to defend the aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah relating to eemaan, they went to excess, and did not do justice in the topic and began to make baseless accusations, because they, unlike the scholars, did not grasp the subtlety of the topic and nature and intent behind the usage of the terms and phrases, and then began to ascribe to the Scholars (like Shaykh al-Albani) that which they are totally free and innocent of which they never intended, from near or far... This was the message I explained again and again before Musa Millington tried to do his deceptive cover up thereafter. In his 12 page PDF response to me (11th March), Musa Millington turned the realities around, used empty doublespeak and deception to cover himself which I exposed in detail in post no 7, so one can refer to it to see the reality of his deception and dishonesty. A team of them are now working to undermine me, and accuse me of opposing the usool and so on. All of these activities are desperate attempts to hide their tracks and their evil agenda, to cover their own confusion, lack of consistency, and lack of understanding in this mattter and to deceive the people about the nature of their activities and the true and real goals behind them. Alhamdulillaah, the insight in the statement of Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel exposes these individuals for what they are: This is a summary of this issue (of the excuse of ignorance), and this issue has equivalent issues (that are like it) for example, "actions are a condition for perfection (kamaal) or a condition for validity (sihhah)", this (issue) is a sister-issue (to the issue of the excuse of ignorance). We do not say "shart kamaal" nor do we say "shart sihhah", we say "actions are from eemaan". However we do not show severity upon a Salafi who says, "shart kamaal" or "shart sihhah." For this one (in saying shart kamaal) has a salaf (a precedence) and that one (in saying shart sihhah) also has a salaf (a precedence). I say that this matter (of the excuse of ignorance) has other equivalent issues, because they are propagated in order to bring about separation between Ahl al-Sunnah, and by Allaah besides whom there is none worthy of worship besides Him, al-udhru bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance) and al-a'maal shart kamaal or shart sihhah (actions being a condition of the perfection or validity [of eemaan]) and what is like them from the issues, then verily they are propagated for no reason except to split the Salafis. Their intent all along was to use this issue for these objectives, to undermine, attack and falsely slander others on account of personal agendas. May Allaah guide their souls and make them realize that all these efforts to save face will prove fruitless because they evidently lack sincerity. That is because whatever needed clarifying was already done in the first post in this thread, but that did not satisfy or please them. And all praise is due to Allaah, may the salat and salam be upon the Messenger, his family and companionns.

[Abu.Iyaad]

Based upon the previous post in this thread, which is founded upon the statements of two Shaykhs, Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel and Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul, Musa Millington in his latest PDF desperation is claiming that I am using the bid'ah of mujmal and mufassal of al-Ma'ribee in the issue of Ibn Hajar's statement! In reality, he is accusing not me, but Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul of this. In this post I will address this matter in defence of Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul. Here is the statement of Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul who said in Sharh Sifat al-Salah lil-Shaykh al-Albani, and he is clarifying the intent of Shaykh al-Albani on this very point (regarding the statement that actions are shart kamaal for eeman): والذي يظهر من سياق كلامه رحمه الله أنه إنما يريد أن التقصير في الأعمال الصالحة لا يبطل الإيمان، فهو يريد بهذه العبارة الرد على الذين يشترطون لصحة الإيمان ألاَّ يعمل معصية، وألاَّ يقع صاحبه في تقصير، لا أنه يريد أن الإيمان يثبت بدون عمل أصلاً ... والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها؛ فإن أراد من قال: الأعمال شرط كمال، أن التقصير في العمل سبب في نقص الإيمان، فهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية، وقد ينقص حتى يزول إذا ترك العمل بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع، فهذا معنى قول أهل السنة والجماعة، ولكن الخطأ في العبارة! وإن أراد أن الإيمان يثبت في أصله بغير عمل، وأن العمل ليس من حقيقة الإيمان، فهذا قول المرجئة ومن قال: الأعمال شرط في صحة الإيمان، إذا كان مراده أن أصل الإيمان لا يثبت إلا بعمل، فلا إيمان بلا عمل، ومن قصر في العمل أنقص من إيمانه، فإذا ترك العمل الصالح بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع ذهب إيمانه؛ فإن هذا هو قول أهل السنة و الجماعة. إذ الظاهر والباطن متلازمان! فالأعمال شرط في صحة ثبوت الإيمان، وهي شرط في كمال الإيمان بعد ثبوته!وإن أراد أن من أنقص العمل ذهب إيمانه، لأن الإيمان إذا نقص بعضه، ذهب كله، فلا يصح إيمان مع نقص العمل، فهذا قول الخوارج And that which is apparent from the context of his speech (rahimahullaah) is that he intends that falling short in the righteous actions does not invalidate eemaan. For he intends by this expression refutation of those who specify as a condition for eemaan that he not fall into disobedience (sin), and that a person (of eemaan) not fall into deficiency, not that he intends that eemaan can be established with any action fundamentally... And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "Actions are shart kamaal (for eemaan)" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression. And if he intended that eemaan can be established in its foundation (asl) without any action, and that action is not from the reality of eemaan, then this is the saying of the Murji'ah. And whoever said "actions are a condition for the validity of eemaan", if his intent is that the foundation (asl) of eemaan cannot be established without action, and thus there is no eemaan without action, and that whoever fell short in action has diminished something from his eemaan. And when he abandons all of the righteous actions in their entirety despite having the ability and there being nothing to prevent him, that his eemaan goes, then this is the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah. Since the outward and inward are mutually bound together! Hence, the actions [as a genus] are a condition for the validity in the (initial) establishment of eemaan, and they [in their afraad, individual instances] are a condition for the perfection of eemaan after its (initial) establishment! But if he means that whoever diminishes anything of action, then his eemaan will go (altogether) because when something of eemaan goes, all of it goes, and thus no eemaan can be valid alongside the decrease in action, then this is the saying of the Khawaarij. This statement of Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul which I cited in the previous post in this thread contains the very same as I what I have been outlining all along in this thread with respect to this matter, and which Musa Millington has failed to grasp, comprehend and acknowledge, choosing instead to fall into blatant contradiction and incoherence. The Bid'ah of Mujmal and Mufassal But as for the bid'ah (in the form of an innovated principle whose intent was to defend the heads of innovation in our time like Sayyid Qutb, al-Maghrawi and others) was propagated by Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee in order to defend the authors of such statements that do not carry except baatil (لا يحتمل إلا باطلا). Such statements include his own, accusing the Sahaabah of being "scum" (الغثائية) and likewise the statements of Sayyid Qutb which are explicit in the aqidah of wahdat ul-wujood and takfir of some of the Sahabah and likewise the statements of al-Maghrawi in making takfir of the Muslim sinners. He was refuted for this false principle by the Scholars, foremost amongst them, Shaykh Rabee' who wrote extensively on this subject. As for when phrases carry meanings that may be false or correct [upon the intent of the one using them] (due to their ambiguity, generalization), then in that situation upon a person is to clarify and explain and to remove the ambiguity and generalization. Others may criticize this statement and explain the error with respect to its ambiguity, generalization. For this reason, by way of example, the Scholars have criticized the statement of Ibn Hajar in that it is an incorrect generalization for all the actions (in the view of those scholars who see no problem in using the terms shart sihhah and shart kamaal in the first place that is). This process here comprises an acceptable and established principle with Ahl al-Sunnah and has nothing to do with the bid'ah of al-mujmal wal-mufassal of al-Ma'ribee, rather it clashes with that innovated principle and invalidates it. An Explanation that Musa Millington Does Not Take From the Ulamaa's Tafseelaat and Follows His Own Desires It is clear that Musa Millington and those with him are simply taking what is contained in my posts in this thread and the explanations therein which are founded upon what the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have outlined with the aim of trying their very best to craft and engineer refutations so as to ascribe to me the opposing of the usool of Ahl al-Sunnah - seeing that their initial attempt failed miserably - even with the use of a blatant slander (promoting the aqeedah of the Ash'aris) and outright dishonesty in ommitting content from the two page chapter which they selectively quoted from. After the initial attempt failed miserably and Abu Fujoor al-Kadhdhaab was exposed, Musa Millington tried to come to his aid to pick up the broken pieces. In this latest attempt, Musa Millington has demonstrated the traits he shares with Abu Fujoor in totally misrepresenting the writings and discussions of the Scholars and having a paucity of understanding, and stumbling in his confusion. Let us make this matter clear: When al-Ma'ribee came with his innovated principle of al-Mujmal wal-Mufassal he tried to argue for it by confusing it with what are otherwise correct principles affirmed by Ahl al-Sunnah. So Shaykh Rabee, when he refuted him, separated between the false princple of al-Ma'ribee from all of that which al-Ma'ribee was trying to use to deceive others into thinking that he has not innovated anything new. In his treatise in refutation of Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee's bidah of al-Mujmal wal-Mufassal (Ibtaal Mazaa'im Abil-Hasan...), Shaykh Rabee states the following: وقال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله في مجموع الفتاوى: " فإن من خاطب بلفظ العام يتناول حقاً وباطلا ولم يبين مراده توجه الاعتراض عليه". أقول: هذه قاعدة مهمة ينبغي مراعاتها والاستفادة منها وهي تبطل ما يقوله أهل الأهواء "بحمل المجمل على المفصل ، والمفصل هو حال الشخص الذي يتكلم بالمجمل". والسلف الصالح على أن العام والمطلق من المجملات ، وبيانها يكون بتخصيص العام وتقييد المطلق ، وعليه شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية. فمن نطق بالعام ولم يخصصه بكلام أو بلفظ مطلق ولم يقيده بكلام يرفع الإشكال توجه عليه الاعتراض، وقد يُخَطَّأُ إذا كان من أهل الاجتهاد في مواضع الاجتهاد، وقد يبدع إذا كان في الأصول والعقائد لا سيما إذا أصر وعاند And Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) said in Majmu' al-Fataawaa, "For the one who addressed (others) with a general word that can comprise truth and falsehood, and did not clarify his intent, then an objection can be directed towards him." I (Rabee') say: This is an important principe that is desirable to be observed and to benefit from, and it invalidates what the people of desires say of "carrying the mujmal upon the mufassal and the mufassal is the condition of the person who has spoken with the mujmal." And the Righteous Salaf are upon the view that the aam (general) and mutlaq (unrestricted) are from the mujmalaat (generalizations, ambiguities), and their clarification is through specifying the general and qualifying the unrestricted. And upon this is Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Hence, whoever spoke with the aam (general) and did not specify his speech, or spoke with a speech that is mutlaq (unrestricted) and did not qualify it with a speech that removes the problematic (element in it), then criticism can be directed towards him. He can be considered to be in error, if he is from the people of ijtihaad in the places of ijtihaad. And he may even be declared an innovator when it is in the usool (foundations) and beliefs, especially when he persists and shows stubborn denial. From this important distinction in this matter by Shaykh Rabee' we derive the following benefits: That there is a separate, correct principle affirmed and corroborated with Ahl al-Sunnah which is that generalized and unrestricted speech must be clarified when it may comprise truth or falsehood. This principle is other than the principle of al-mujmal wal-mufassal intended by al-Ma'ribee, and it in fact invalidates the principle of al-mujmal wal-mufassal in which it is claimed that when someone speaks that which is outright baatil it is necessary to look at his condition in general so as to make excuses and to put that baatil in the best light possible. Shaykh Rabee' separated out the falsehood of al-Ma'ribee from what are otherwise correct principles with Ahl al-Sunnah. Upon this, what Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul explained in what I quoted from him in the previous post is actually the principle affirmed with Ahl al-Sunnah of takhsees (specification) of the aam (general) and taqyeed (restriction) of the mutlaq (unrestricted) where ambiguity is found - in fact it is the very thing stated by Ibn Taymiyyah "For the one who addressed (others) with a general word that can comprise truth and falsehood, and did not clarify his intent, then an objection can be directed towards him"- and upon this we understand what Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul wrote regarding Shaykh al-Albani's speech (which is actually Ibn Hajar's speech) and mentioned the issue of looking at what a person intends by these statements and the necessity of tafseel (clarifying) and istifsaal (seeking clarification) where the intent has not been clarified in generalized statements, and where truth or falsehood may be contained. And practically speaking, when istifsaal (clarification) was sought from Shaykh al-Albaanee in his lifetime, when people would go to him and take the accusations that his sayings comprise Irjaa', he would clarify and explain that actions are part of eemaan, and action is necessary for the validity of eemaan, and clarify his intent. When the clarification has been made, then the issue is resolved and the i'tiraad (objection) is then removed. All that remains then is the issue of an erroneous expression used to put forward what is essentially a correct meaning (upon the acceptable fiqh difference regarding the ruling on abandoning prayer as it relates to this particular matter). This is a different subject area to that of the innovation of al-mujmal wal-mufassal of al-Ma'ribee which is used to defend outright baatil [such as the statement that "the Companions are scum" and so on], which does not enter into the subject of unspecified generality or unqualified absolution. Because what al-Ma'ribee is intending by his principle is that no clarification or recantation is required, and that when a person says for example "the Companions are scum", if we know him to be from the Sunnah, instead of criticizing him, we should go to other statements of his where he praises the Companions, and through this we carry what is mujmal [which in reality is a false claim, it is not "mujmal" but is outright plain baatil] upon the general condition of this person, or what this same person has said elsewhere, all in order to make excuses for him and for the baatil he expressed. This principle of al-mujmal wal-mufassal allows for falsehood and that which is incorrect to remain and be excused, unlike the correct principle with Ahl al-Sunnah. These are two different issues, and Shaykh Rabee' clarified the difference between them to refute the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee and the Shaykh elaborated upon this to show the difference. Hence, Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul explained the matter of Shaykh al-Albaanee's speech (which is that of Ibn Hajar) upon correct Shar'iyy principles which I followed him in, the Shaykh said: والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. Based upon the saying of Ibn Taymiyyah: فإن من خاطب بلفظ العام يتناول حقاً وباطلا ولم يبين مراده توجه الاعتراض عليه "For the one who addressed (others) with a general word that can comprise truth and falsehood, and did not clarify his intent, then an objection can be directed towards him. And as elaborated by Shaykh Rabee himself as has preceded. And note that Ibn Taymiyyah said, (ولم يبين مراده), "... and did not make clear his intent..." indicating that when the intent is made clear in the same time and place as the original speech or writing, or thereafter, then the matter is different and there is no objection remaining except from the angle of it not being befitting to use the ambiguous word or phrase. O dear! Musa Millington has confused between the two issues, indicating that he mines into the statements and writings of the Scholar upon his own whim, understanding and personal agenda, without recourse to the Scholars! He has clearly not understood this issue (just as he has not understood the issue of the usage of the terms shart kamaal and shart sihhah and has shown his stumbling and his contradiction). This is a great crime against not only in the issue you are attempting to discuss, but also to the Scholars whose writings you are relying upon in the process, when you are falsely applying what they have written to situations which they themselves have isolated and distinguished from that which they have made the object of criticism. It is upon Musa Millington to make tawbah from this straight away for misleading others in this matter. Regarding the Statement of Ibn Hajar Even though the statement in question is not even my statement, it is the statement of Ibn Hajar, I included that passage from him in that short two-page chapter only to use as evidence the part where he says that to the Salaf, eemaan is i'tiqaad (belief), qawl (speech) and 'amal (action) in order to refute the Tahriris for distinguishing between eemaan and aqeedah and not for any other purpose, so the error is Ibn Hajar's, not mine. The real issue was simply that an observation or two in that chapter would have helped to maintained clarity, and this is where the real objection is and how it should have been presented instead of slandering me by saying I promoted the aqeedah of the Ash'aris. In any case and despite all that, I wrote in three places in my first post about the erroneous generalization of Ibn Hajar's words on 7th March, here they are once again: POINT 4: In the quote which I included from Ibn Hajar in the chapter there is an itlaaq (generalisation, absolution) in his explanation of the difference between the saying of the Salaf and the saying of the Mu'tazilah which is incorrect. So whilst Ibn Hajar correctly characterized the view of the Salaf that eemaan in the shari'ah is i'tiqaad, qawl and 'amal, he erred by implying that all action to the Mu'tazilah is shart sihhah and all action to the Salaf is shart kamaal. This is an error because from the actions are those which are mustahabb and waajib whose omission would not invalidate eemaan, thus, they cannot be considered to be shart sihhah (upon the understanding that these terms (shart kamaal, shart sihhah) are employed by some of the Scholars to speak of individual actions, whereas others say these terms are not to be used or employed). Likewise, the Mu'tazilah do not hold that all action is shart sihhah, rather it is only that whose abandoment is a kabeerah (major sin) which they hold to be shart sihhah. Hence, the generalization made by Ibn Hajar is incorrect. And I quoted al-Shibal: The author of al-Tanbeeh 'alaa al-Mukhaalafaat al-Aqadiyyah Fil-Fath al-Baaree (Dar al-Watan, 1422, p. 28) writes, commenting on Ibn Hajar's differentiation between the saying of the Salaf and that of the Mu'tazilah (and this book has taqreedh by the following Shaykhs, Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz, Salih al-Fawzan, Abdullah al-Aqil and Abdullah bin Manee'): الصواب أن الأعمال عند السلف الصالح: قد تكون شرطاً في صحة الإيمان، أي أنها من حقيقة الإيمان قد ينتفي الإيمان بانتفائها، كالصلاة. وقد تكون شرطاً في كماله الواجب فينقص الإيمان بانتفائها كبقية الأعمال التي تركها فسق ومعصية، وليس كفراً. فهذا التفصيل لابد منه لفهم قول السلف الصالح وعدم خلطه بقول الوعيدية. مع أن العمل عند أهل السنة والجماعة ركن من أركان الإيمان الثلاثة: قول وعمل واعتقاد، والإيمان عندهم يزيد وينقص. خلافاً للخوارج والمعتزلة. والله ولي التوفيق That which is correct is that actions to the Righteous Salaf can sometimes be a condition for the validity of eemaan, meaning that they are from its reality, eemaan can expire by the absence of these (actions), such as prayer. And they can sometimes be a condition for the obligatory perfection (of eemaan), like the rest of the actions whose abandonment is sinfulness and disobedience, but not disbelief. This tafseel (clarification) is necessary in order to understand the saying of the Righteous Salaf and not to mix their saying with the saying of the Wa'eediyyah (Mu'tazilah). Alongside this, action to Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is a pillar from its three pillars (which are): statement (qawl), action (amal) and belief (i'tiqaad), and eemaan in their view, increases and decreases, in opposition to the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah, and Allaah is the granter of success. And I quoted Muhammad Ishaq Kandu from his Master's thesis: However, there remains an indication of an observation about what al-Haafidh mentioned about the intent of the Salaf behind the entrance of actions into the meaning of eemaan, when he said, "And they intended by this that actions are a condition for its perfection." This saying is not correct, for it is not preserved from any of the Salaf that they said this. Rather, the Salaf, when they mentioned action in the definition of eemaan, they intended [to say] that action is a part (juz') of eemaan, as is the reality of the eemaan in the usage of the Qur'an, for every application of the [word] eemaan in the Qur'an has been explained therein that a man does not become a believer except with action alongside belief (i'tiqaad) and tasdeeq. But this does not mean that eemaan cannot be attained by doing all of the action, rather a person can be a believer whilst falling short in some of the action and his eemaan decreases to the extent that his action decreases. This is in opposition to [the saying of] the Khawarij and the Mu'tazilah who say that all of eemaan disappears when something of action is missing built upon their corrupt foundation that eemaan is a single entity, when some of it goes, all of it goes. All of this was very conveniently ignored by Musa Millington when he decided to come to the rescue of the faajir kadhdhaab (Abu Fujoor) who started this thing off. Musa Milington pretended to be ignorant of all of these matters I clarified in the very first post, showing his injustice. In my subsequent posts I went on to explain that the use of the words shart kamaal and shart sihhah, there is diversity amongst the Scholars regarding their use, and thus ambiguity. Some Scholars have used the phrase "shart kamaal" for actions which other scholars have said is Irjaa' (whilst the intending meaning of those scholars was to refute the Mu'tazilah) Some Scholars have used "shart sihhah" for action which some other scholars (Shaykh al-Suhaymee) have said gives the presumption of the aqidah of the Khawaarij and others (Shaykh al-Raajihee) say that this is also Irjaa' because it entails expelling actions from eemaan (due to using the word shart), whereas the intent of those scholars is to refute the Murji'ah for not making action a part of eemaan. Some Scholars have made tafseel some actions are shart sihhah and some are shart kamaal and despite this, some other Scholars have said this also expels action from eemaan because the issue revolves around the word shart and that it is a contradiction to use these terms. Some (Shaykh al-Rajihee) have said anyone who uses these terms, whether to say action is shart sihhah or actions are shart kamaal, that they are from the Murji'ah without any distinction between them, both of them are from the Murji'ah whether they say shart sihhah or shart kamaal. Some have said these terms should be avoided altogether (the best opinion and advice) There is no doubt that these statements (due to their generalization or unrestriction) therefore become problematic and contain ambiguity because the very intent behind their usage varies amongst the Scholars. The use of "shart sihhah" and "shart kamaal", these statements may comprise truth or falsehood and thus, what is required here is bayaan (clarification). When the matter is clarified, then there is no i'tiraad (criticism any longer). As Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul stated : والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها ؛فإن أراد من قال: الأعمال شرط كمال، أن التقصير في العمل سبب في نقص الإيمان، فهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية، وقد ينقص حتى يزول إذا ترك العمل بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع، فهذا معنى قول أهل السنة والجماعة، ولكن الخطأ في العبارة! And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "Actions are shart kamaal" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression. So a person may intend a true meaning, but may err in the expression. This is what Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul has clarified in his introduction to Shaykh al-Albaani's Sifat Salaat al-Nabi. Likewise we say about the statement that "action is shart sihhah for eemaan", this is a generalization and contains an ambiguity, it may comprise the meaning intended by the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij, or it may comprise the meaning intended by Ahl al-Sunnah that the genus of action is required for eemaan to be valid. Thus, here we make istifsaal (as Shaykh Bazmul says) and clarify the intent, whilst the statement itself is considered an incorrect unrestriction (itlaaq) that may give presumption of aqidah of the Khawarij to some scholars or the aqidah of the Murji'ah to others. Compare this to the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee who was using his innovated false principle of al-mujmal wal-mufassal to defend sayings such as: The Companions are scum! (al-Ma'ribee) How on earth could a person have intended a correct meaning but erred in the expression here?! That all the verses in the Qur'an pertaining to the Hypocrites apply to 100% of the people in our time! (al-Maghrawi). How on earth could a person have intended a correct meaning but erred in expression here?! Statements that are explicit in Wahdat ul-Wujood. ِAnd whatever is similar to these types of plain falsehood in whose meaning and wording there is no ambiguity and which are nothing to with the correct principle with Ahl al-Sunnah outlined earlier. This is the intent of al-Ma'ribee, to defend statements such as these, with his own innovated principle. And Shaykh Rabee' clarified the difference so as to refute al-Ma'ribee to remove any confusion. Musa Millington Exposes His True Realities: Fake Scholarship and Misrepresenting the Writings of the Scholars Out of Hawaa It is now clear that Musa Millington is doing gross injustice to Shaykh Rabee' from the angle that Shaykh Rabee made a distinction between these matters (by the above clarification during his radd on al-Ma'ribee) in order to refute the principle of al-Ma'ribee. Musa Millington has completely misunderstood the issue of al-mujmal and al-mufassal that al-Ma'ribee intended and in his ignorance and shallow understanding, he thought he could accuse me of applying this principle. It is clear that he is simply trying to find any way or means to accuse me of opposing the usool in his vain attempts to send out a barrage of PDF refutations which show nothing except his takhabbut (stumbling, fumbling) in this matter. The likeness between him and Abu Fujoor becomes even more apparent. Further, he demonstrates the Haddaadee traits that are becoming more and more evident and which include: a) jahl, b) hawaa, c) lying upon the Shaykhs of Ahl al-Sunnah, d) accusing them of entering innovation and opposing the usool, e) slandering innocent Muslims in their religion, f) using as evidence the statements and writings of Scholars (such as those of Shaykh Rabee') out of their proper places. In reality, Musa Millington is accusing not me, but Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul of employing the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee in order to defend Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh al-Albani was simply using the expression of Ibn Hajar in order to explain that when a Muslim leaves a branch from the outward branches of eemaan, that he does not become a disbeliever, and this is Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul's explanation, and I did not bring this from myself. Which from the people of knowledge has Musa Millington returned to in his claim that to say what Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul has said in the introduction to his sharh of Shaykh al-Albani's Sifat al-Salaah is the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee, "al-Mujmal wal-Mufassal"?! No one! Hence their ignorance and oppression continues: Firstly, Abu Fujoor tried to accuse me of propagating the aqeedah of the Ash'aris, a gross slander. As for Ibn Hajar's generalization, I clarified it three times in one post at the top of this thread. It is from the traits of the Haddaadees that they can't stomach clarifications which put a dead stop to their intended mischief and their kindling of the fire. Secondly, In Musa's attempts to cover and defend Abu Fujoor and lend him support, he unwittingly undermined the whole point of Abu Fujoor's initial document by using the example of wudhoo being a shart of the prayer (it is shart sihhah for the prayer and outside of the prayer) [despite the context being one that relates to kamaal], which when pointed out (10th March) to show their utter confusion, it led Musa to telling lies and twisting the realities in order to hide his embarassment in his subsequent 12 page PDF he released the next day (11th March) as a means to cover things up and overturn the realities. Thirdly, Musa is now ascribing the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee to Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul in reality who explained that the phrases "actions are shart kamaal" and "actions are shart sihhah" are ambiguous, generalized phrases which require tafseel and by which a person may intend a true or a false meaning. This has come from a person of knowledge, a Shaykh, a Scholar, it did not originate from me. Further, this point also has support from what was said by Shaykh Muhammad al-Aqeel whose statement I also quoted in the previous post. My advice to Musa Millington and the others is to stop right now and repent to Allaah before you end up falling into greater disgraces Already you have done injustice to Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul and Shaykh Rabee' from the angle that you are misrepresenting the issue of al-mujmal wal-mufassal through your fake scholarship. All these PDFs you are writing are nothing but a sign of your desperation. Your initial plot failed and you were exposed. Then you embarked upon a campaign to discredit me through every means possible. But since that time you have not ceased exposing your ownselves and the people have seen your ignorance and oppression. The likeness between Musa Millington and Abu Fujoor is manifesting itself more and more, indeed a man is like the one he keeps company with. We seek refuge in Allaah from jahl (ignorance) and ittibaa' ul-hawaa (following desires). All praise is due to Allaah and salaat and salaam be upon the Messenger, his Family and Companions.

[Abu.Iyaad]

After my last post yesterday in response to Musa Millington's misguided accusation that I implement and promote the false principle of al-Ma'ribee of al-mujmal and mufassal - an accusation which in reality is directed to Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul, because he (along with Shaykh Muhammad Aqeel) are the ones whose speech in post no. 10 in this thread was based upon, today, to my surprise, I received an email that this network of people have gone to two Shaykhs. I sincerely praise and thank Allaah that they did this for reasons outlined in this post. In this post we will understand the pathology (diagnosis) of (the disease of) Abu Fujoor (which appears to be infecting those who maintain contact with him and participate in his activities). First let us take a look at this email. There are a number of points: POINT 1: The Title, "One of our brothers called two of the scholars regarding the issue of Amjad Rafeeq." This is unnecessary pretentiousness. On 6th March Abu Fujoor al-Kadhdhaab sent out his 8 page "Clarification". In this clarification he concealed content highly-relevant from the two-page chapter in Foundations of the Sunnah (regarding eemaan with the Salaf) and slandered me by claiming I propagated the aqidah of the Ash'ariyyah. However, he brought statements regarding valid observations on Ibn Hajar's statement that was included in the chapter in question. On 7th March, I posted a response (first in this thread) stating: a) Abu Fujoor is an established kadhdhaab with undisputable evidences. b) That an established and confirmed liar nevertheless can speak what is correct as well, c) That there are observations on the statement of Ibn Hajar. In that first post I clarified all those observations and which were related to: a) the definition of eemaan linguistically as tasdeeq, b) the generalization in Ibn Hajr's speech when explaining the difference between the position of the Salaf and that of the Mu'tazilah, and this I stated in my own words in POINT 4 in that first post and also by citing from al-Shibal, c) the saying of actions are condition for the completion of eemaan (through Kandu's Master's thesis). And with this the "issue" was finished and there was no issue left. This put an immediate and rapid end to the mischief intended by Abu Fujoor, he was left empty-handed. He had been exposed yet again for a) jahl (ignorance), b) kadhib (lying) c) pretence (pretending he compiled those statements) d) evil intentions. Thus, when Abu Fujoor sends out this email today on 17th March, 10 days later, with the title, "One of our brothers called two of the scholars regarding the issue of Amjad Rafeeq", this is takaabur (arrogance) and takalluf (unnecessary pretentious activity). Pathological liars are driven by a need to falsify prior established facts. There is really no issue except in the minds of these individuals. It has become an issue for them because "the ends justify the means", and hence we see the means they have now resorted to. Despite the issue being closed and done and dusted with that first post, Musa Millington came along to give Abu Fujoor some back up, choosing to be heedless of what my first post contained. Something he posted on 8th March was sent to me by someone by email, which I then addressed. From this point on, the discussion moved onto the issue of the word shart (condition) and the ambiguity and confusion it creates in this particular subject area. I spoke at length with respect to this (in numerous posts above) and made some observations which centered around the following: The word "shart" is used by different scholars (as in shart kamaal, shart sihhah) with different intentions in mind. There is no consistency amongst the scholars on its use, some employ it for the afraad of the actions (as it relates to what invalidates eemaan if abandoned from the individual actions), some employ it for action in its genus (as it relates to the sihhah of eemaan), some apply it to both the kamal and sihhah of eemaan and make tafseel, some oppose its use, and some label anyone who uses it at all, in any way, as expelling actions from eemaan. When these terms are used "shart kamaal", "shart sihhah" the scholars intend different objectives, sometimes refuting the Murji'ah, sometimes refuting the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij, sometimes speaking about actions individually (in their afraad), sometimes speaking about action in their genus and so on. Built upon this when a scholar has used these terms, then we understand his intent based upon what underlying usool he is affirming in this subject of eeman. Thus if a scholar says actions are a part of eemaan, emaan increases and decreases (because it is made up of actions, along with beliefs and speech), and opposes the Murij'ah in their usool, and then he uses the words "shart kamaal" (for actions) then we understand his intent in light of that,especially when the context explicitly indicates he is intending opposition to the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij by this. This way, we can identify very precisely, the exact and true nature of the error, whether it is in the meaning or merely the expression that was used. And that despite this, the ambiguity and generalization in the use of such terms can be objected to, because this can be considered an error in expression, even if the underlying meaning and intent is actually correct and that its best that they are avoided. These were some of the main points I addressed in my posts above, there were many more. After this, these people (in particular Musa Millington) sent out barrage of desperate refutations (after the initial attempt failed to reach its objectives), with claims of "opposing the usool" and "using the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee" (al-mujmal and mufassal) and so on. POINT 2: Dishonesty and Falsification in the Question. Allaah knows best who crafted the question. Was it one person? Did they collaborate on the question? Whatever the case, there is deliberate distortion of facts from someone amongst them. In their question below I have inserted the Arabic wording in parts of the question (from the audio) to indicate inaccuracy in translation and also inaccuracy in the actual presentation of the facts in the question. Pay attention to the part in blue. Any highlighting is from me in order to draw attention to the reader to that which is being commented on. One of the brothers wrote on the issue of Imaan and he came with the speech of Imaam Ibn Hajar that the Salaf’s view was that Imaan consists of statements actions and belief and that actions are a condition of Imaan (note: in arabic [وأن العمل شرط كمال ], action in singular). Therefore another brother clarified that this definition of Imaan was incorrect because: It is general [لأنه مجمل] (the speech can be taken into many different ways) [note: the explanation in brackets (the speech can be taken into many different ways) is not in the question, it is an explanatory addition by Abu Fujoor]. It is from the speech of the Murji’ah Then he came with the speech of the scholars such as Ibn Baaz, Saalih Aal Ash Shaikh, Saalih Al Fawzaan and Shaikh Rajihi. However, the brothers who wrote the speech of Ibn Hajar said: “This speech is according to the intention of the person and the Usool that he operates from.” Is there any advice for the person who wrote the speech of Ibn Hajar in this matter? The following points can be made here: The First: I already made the observation earlier on that we have to be careful in distinguishing between the usage of the words (العمل) and (الأعمال) because the scholars who use them can either be referring to the genus of action (meaning, action in principle, not any particular individual action, but action in concept and principle), and individual actions (الأعمال) . Thus we may see the word (العمل) and (الأعمال) being used for a specific purpose. In the question in Arabic, the questioner informed the Shaykh in the speech of Ibn Hajar there is (وأن العمل شرط كمال). This is incorrect, Ibn Hajar did not say that, he used the word (الأعمال). This is purely from the point of being accurate in words and not misrepresenting or misquoting anybody. The Second: The blatant lie that the brother (i.e. Abu Fujoor) who explained the definition was incorrect did so because "It is general" [لأنه مجمل] (the speech can be taken into many different ways). This is outright falsification. It is a blatant deliberate lie. Rather, this was the very reason they started to attack and refute me for claiming that this statement is "mujmal" (general, ambiguous) and that we should investigate the intent of the one who uses it even if the expression can be considered erroneous. The very likely reason why they have inserted this lie into the question is to do with the issue of Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul's clarification I posted on 15th March (post no. 11) that these are mujmal words and that the intent of the who uses them should be clarified. Musa Millington accused me (in reality he is accusing Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul) of the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee on account of this point I had been making all along. Since, I pointed out what is in reality a false attack upon Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul (as well as me) and showed their ignorance in this matter, they appear to be trying to cover their tracks by falsifying prior established facts in the subsequent cover up operation they are running now. And one of the ways is to embed false information into the questions they are using to elicit speech from those whom they have gone to in order to use against me, so that when other people come to review what happened they will only see a version of what was said and what transpired which contains within it embedded false information to overturn the realities. This very point (about these terms being ambiguous and general and therefore requiring tafseel (clarification) and istifsaal (seeking clarification) is the one that I actually made in many of my posts and for which they attacked and accused me (and Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul to the first degree) of implementing the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee! The Third: Regarding the part that Abu Fujoor added from himself in his translation of the question, (the speech can be taken into many different ways). This is what Musa Millington attempted to refute me for, and claimed that I implemented the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee on account of it. Later in their question they say about the point that I made, "This speech is according to the intention of the person..." So what is the difference then? If the speech is mujmal (as you claimed falsely in the question that you had explained this to me), and you say in explanation (the speech can be taken into many different ways), then how is it wrong if I say "This speech is according to the intention of the person..." (because it is mujmal and depends on what the person intends by it)? This is a contradiction in the very question itself (alongside what it contains of blatant falsification of the facts). But as I said, they are trying to cover their backs after I posted the previous post in defence of Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul and his discussion of this point within his explanation of Sifat Salah al-Nabi of Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahullaah). The Fourth: The last part of the question: Then he came with the speech of the scholars such as Ibn Baaz, Saalih Aal Ash Shaikh, Saalih Al Fawzaan and Shaikh Rajihi. However, the brothers who wrote the speech of Ibn Hajar said: “This speech is according to the intention of the person and the Usool that he operates from.” Is there any advice for the person who wrote the speech of Ibn Hajar in this matter? This is perhaps the greatest lie of all. Whoever conspired upon this question has proven they have little wara' (awe, fear) of Allaah. Rather, if they had feared Allaah in this matter, they would have said: The brother made a clarification that the statement of Ibn Hajar contains a number of observations and made the clarification in his own words and in the words of al-Shibal and likewise from Kandu's master's thesis. The brother then went on to explain that these terms which involve the word shart are ambiguous and cause difficulty because their use is not consistent amongst the Scholars and he stated that the intent of a person behind their use should be looked at in light of what that person affirms of usool pertaining to eemaan, even if the expression itself may be erroneous... etc. So if they feared Allaah, this is what they would have said. But this is outright blatant dishonesty. Despite this they never achieved anything or got anything in the process. Notice that the answer of Shaykh al-Barraak is incomplete, it cuts off abruptly at the part where the issue of speech (qawl) is being discussed. That's not the full answer, there must be more. Allaah knows best why it has been clipped at that point. To indicate the dishonesty of these people, here are the sample quotes from my first post on 7th March once again, for the record: POINT 2: Ahl al-Sunnah are the most just of people, an established liar may sometimes have some speech which is correct, just as the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallaam) said to Abu Hurayrah (صدقك وهو كذوب) "He spoke the truth to you even though he is a great liar." The statement from Ibn Hajar (rahimahullaah) under question does have a couple of observations. And also: POINT 4: In the quote which I included from Ibn Hajar in the chapter there is an itlaaq (generalisation, absolution) in his explanation of the difference between the saying of the Salaf and the saying of the Mu'tazilah which is incorrect. So whilst Ibn Hajar correctly characterized the view of the Salaf that eemaan in the shari'ah is i'tiqaad, qawl and 'amal, he erred by implying that all action to the Mu'tazilah is shart sihhah and all action to the Salaf is shart kamaal. This is an error because from the actions are those which are mustahabb and waajib whose omission would not invalidate eemaan, thus, they cannot be considered to be shart sihhah (upon the understanding that these terms (shart kamaal, shart sihhah) are employed by some of the Scholars to speak of individual actions, whereas others say these terms are not to be used or employed). Likewise, the Mu'tazilah do not hold that all action is shart sihhah, rather it is only that whose abandoment is a kabeerah (major sin) which they hold to be shart sihhah. Hence, the generalization made by Ibn Hajar is incorrect. I also quoted al-Shibal, the author of al-Tanbeeh 'alaa al-Mukhaalafaat al-Aqadiyyah Fil-Fath al-Baaree (Dar al-Watan, 1422, p. 28): الصواب أن الأعمال عند السلف الصالح: قد تكون شرطاً في صحة الإيمان، أي أنها من حقيقة الإيمان قد ينتفي الإيمان بانتفائها، كالصلاة. وقد تكون شرطاً في كماله الواجب فينقص الإيمان بانتفائها كبقية الأعمال التي تركها فسق ومعصية، وليس كفراً. فهذا التفصيل لابد منه لفهم قول السلف الصالح وعدم خلطه بقول الوعيدية. مع أن العمل عند أهل السنة والجماعة ركن من أركان الإيمان الثلاثة: قول وعمل واعتقاد، والإيمان عندهم يزيد وينقص. خلافاً للخوارج والمعتزلة. والله ولي التوفيق That which is correct is that actions to the Righteous Salaf can sometimes be a condition for the validity of eemaan, meaning that they are from its reality, eemaan can expire by the absence of these (actions), such as prayer. And they can sometimes be a condition for the obligatory perfection (of eemaan), like the rest of the actions whose abandonment is sinfulness and disobedience, but not disbelief. This tafseel (clarification) is necessary in order to understand the saying of the Righteous Salaf and not to mix their saying with the saying of the Wa'eediyyah (Mu'tazilah). Alongside this, action to Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is a pillar from its three pillars (which are): statement (qawl), action (amal) and belief (i'tiqaad), and eemaan in their view, increases and decreases, in opposition to the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah, and Allaah is the granter of success. I also quoted Kandu, from his Master's thesis: However, there remains an indication of an observation about what al-Haafidh mentioned about the intent of the Salaf behind the entrance of actions into the meaning of eemaan, when he said, "And they intended by this that actions are a condition for its perfection." This saying is not correct, for it is not preserved from any of the Salaf that they said this. Rather, the Salaf, when they mentioned action in the definition of eemaan, they intended [to say] that action is a part (juz') of eemaan, as is the reality of the eemaan in the usage of the Qur'an, for every application of the [word] eemaan in the Qur'an has been explained therein that a man does not become a believer except with action alongside belief (i'tiqaad) and tasdeeq. But this does not mean that eemaan cannot be attained by doing all of the action, rather a person can be a believer whilst falling short in some of the action and his eemaan decreases to the extent that his action decreases. This is in opposition to [the saying of] the Khawarij and the Mu'tazilah who say that all of eemaan disappears when something of action is missing built upon their corrupt foundation that eemaan is a single entity, when some of it goes, all of it goes. POINT 3: The Answer of al-Shibal. This is where you wonder whether these people actually have any aql (reason). I wonder why they even bothered to send out this answer of al-Shibal, it undermines all their subsequent refutations (after Abu Fujoor's first clarification of 6th March). It proves they do not really grasp the issues and are more interested in attaining their ulterior motives. First, it is better to quote the original Arabic of the response from the audio, because Abu Fujoor's translation contains inaccuracies and omissions (this established kadhdhaab and dishonest, unreliable individual should not be translating anything at all). The answer of al-Shibal: الحافظ ابن حجر - رحمه الله - في هذه المسألة أخطأ فالعمل قد يكون شرط كمال وقد (يكون) شرط صحة وقد يكون ركنا وقد يكون مستحبا. وأما إخراح العمل عن الإيمان إذا كونه شرطا من شروطه هذا كلام غير صحيح. فالعمل من الإيمان باتفاق السلف لأن الإيمان قول واعتقاد وعمل والعمل هنا منه ما هو ركن من الإيمان لا يصح الإيمان إلا به ومنه ما هو واجب ومنه ما هو شرط ومنه ما هو مستحب نعم Let's provide our own translation here: al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar (rahimahullaah) erred in this matter. For action (العمل) can sometimes be shart kamaal (condition for perfection) and sometimes be shart sihhah (condition for validity) and sometimes can be a rukn (pillar) and sometimes can be mustahabb (recommended). As for expelling action from eemaan by making it a condition amongst it conditions, this speech is not correct. Hence, action is from eemaan by agreement of the Salaf, because eemaan is speech, belief and action. And action here, from it is that which is a pillar (rukn), eemaan is not valid without it, and from it is that which is waajib (obligatory) and from it is that which is a shart (condition) and from it is that which is mustahabb (recommended). A number of points on this: The First: Abu Fujoor and those collobarating with him on this have proved that they don't understand a thing here and I am certain that they were so fixated on sending out an email titled "Two Scholars regarding the issue of Amjad Rafeeq" that they forgot to actually stop and reflect on the content, meaning and implication of what they wanted to send out! They don't know whether something is for them or against them. The second: This statement of al-Shibal corroborates and validates every point that I have been making all along for the following reasons: Al-Shibal is saying that action, in its genus, is a rukn, and from it is that which is a shart (of either kamaal or sihhah), that which is waajib and that which is mustahabb. Here, he intends to criticize Ibn Hajar who said that the a'maal (as in individual actions) are all shart kamaal, and who made this statement to essentially refute the Mu'tazilah. The angle of criticism that al-Shibal is corroborating again here is not the actual use of "shart kamaal" as a term (because al-Shibal has used it himself here in this very answer) but to criticize the generalization or non-restriction (itlaaq) of Ibn Hajar. To put it another way, al-Shibal's answer is getting the following across: When he says action (العمل) can sometimes be a rukn (pillar), here he is referring to the genus of action (meaning not any specific action individually but action as a whole, in principle), and thus it is one of the three pillars, belief, speech and action without which eemaan is not established (or he can be referring to the arkaan, such as the shahaadah, prayer, fasting, zakah, hajj). When he says action can sometimes be (شرط كمال) he means that from it whose abandonment does not invalidate eemaan (from the waajibaat and mustahabbaat). When he says that sometimes it can be (شرط صحة) he means that from it whose performance is required for eemaan to be valid (i.e. establishing prayer) or that whose abandonment is required for eeman to be valid (i.e. committing shirk, reviling the religion etc.). And when he says it can sometimes be (واجب) or (مستحب), he means that from it which if someone acts upon is from the obligatory or recommended perfection of eemaan (without him invalidating eemaan if he does not bring it). Al-Shibal says from action it is that which is a shart kamaal and that which is shart sihhah. By criticizing the generalization of Ibn Hajar (although it certainly solves a part of the problem), it still does not solve the entire problem for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is because he is still employing the words "shart kamaal" and "shart sihhah" (see next point below) for that which enters into eemaan and he is from that group of scholars who still employ these terms to speak about action and eemaan. The second reason is those who say "actions are shart kamaal for eemaan", they affirm action is a pillar and a juz' of eemaan (and that there are waajibaat and mustahabbaat). They simply mean to say that the abandonment of none of the commanded actions individually entails disblief (upon their fiqh position that abandonment of prayer without juhood does not invalidate eemaan) and this is in order to refute the Mu'tazilah who say that leaving off something of outward action invalidates eemaan. The reality of al-Shibal's critique is that because he considers abandonment of prayer to invalidate eemaan, and he may also be including those actions whose abandonment is from the validity of eemaan itself (such as committing shirk and mocking the religion or the messenger etc.), he sees a problem with this generalization of Ibn Hajar, because in light of this, not all actions therefore can be considered "shart kamaal" and in this case he is absolutely correct, if we look at it from this angle. So here it now comes down to what is person really intending by his phrases and what he means by action(s) - is it the genus, or individual actions, and does he hold abandoning prayer invalidates eemaan, and is he including within "action" the abandonment (ترك) of those actions which invalidate eemaan (i.e. committing acts of shirk and kufr). We have still not escaped the ambiguity that I have been speaking about all along, because even al-Shibal is still making use of the word shart (be it for kamaal or be it for sihhah in relation to something of what enters into eemaan), whereas some Scholars say that this is also Irjaa' (entails expelling action from eemaan) - [if you say the prayer is shart sihhah it means prayer is outside of eemaan because of the meaning of the word "shart"] - and other Scholars say it is a contradiction! So going to al-Shibal and posing this question to him (and his answer) does not solve any problems in reality and it really proves the immaturity of these people. However, the answer of al-Shibal does validate everything I have said all along. Which is that there is ambiguity in these terms because they are being used with different intents and purposes, there is no consistency. And thus, if you want to criticize Ibn Hajar's (or al-Albani's) statement because it may comprise Irjaa', then don't come with the statements of other scholars which can also be said to comprise Irjaa'. All of this brings us in a round circle, back to where we started from! This establishes what Shaykh Muhammad Umar Bazmul said (and which Musa Millington in his ignorance stated is the bid'ah of al-Ma'ribee of al-mujmal wal-mufassal): والذي يظهر من سياق كلامه رحمه الله أنه إنما يريد أن التقصير في الأعمال الصالحة لا يبطل الإيمان، فهو يريد بهذه العبارة الرد على الذين يشترطون لصحة الإيمان ألاَّ يعمل معصية، وألاَّ يقع صاحبه في تقصير، لا أنه يريد أن الإيمان يثبت بدون عمل أصلاً ... والحقيقة أن هذه الألفاظ مجملة لابد فيها من بيان، فلا تقبل ولا ترد إلا بعد الاستفصال عن مراد أصحابها؛ فإن أراد من قال: الأعمال شرط كمال، أن التقصير في العمل سبب في نقص الإيمان، فهو يزيد بالطاعة وينقص بالمعصية، وقد ينقص حتى يزول إذا ترك العمل بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع، فهذا معنى قول أهل السنة والجماعة، ولكن الخطأ في العبارة! وإن أراد أن الإيمان يثبت في أصله بغير عمل، وأن العمل ليس من حقيقة الإيمان، فهذا قول المرجئة ومن قال: الأعمال شرط في صحة الإيمان، إذا كان مراده أن أصل الإيمان لا يثبت إلا بعمل، فلا إيمان بلا عمل، ومن قصر في العمل أنقص من إيمانه، فإذا ترك العمل الصالح بالكلية مع القدرة وعدم المانع ذهب إيمانه؛ فإن هذا هو قول أهل السنة و الجماعة. إذ الظاهر والباطن متلازمان! فالأعمال شرط في صحة ثبوت الإيمان، وهي شرط في كمال الإيمان بعد ثبوته!وإن أراد أن من أنقص العمل ذهب إيمانه، لأن الإيمان إذا نقص بعضه، ذهب كله، فلا يصح إيمان مع نقص العمل، فهذا قول الخوارج And that which is apparent from the context of his speech (rahimahullaah) is that he intends that falling short in the righteous actions does not invalidate eemaan. For he intends by this expression refutation of those who specify as a condition for eemaan that he not fall into disobedience (sin), and that a person (of eemaan) not fall into deficiency, not that he intends that eemaan can be established with any action fundamentally... And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "Actions are shart kamaal (for eemaan)" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression. And if he intended that eemaan can be established in its foundation (asl) without any action, and that action is not from the reality of eemaan, then this is the saying of the Murji'ah. And whoever said "actions are a condition for the validity of eemaan", if his intent is that the foundation (asl) of eemaan cannot be established without action, and thus there is no eemaan without action, and that whoever fell short in action has diminished something from his eemaan. And when he abandons all of the righteous actions in their entirety despite having the ability and there being nothing to prevent him, that his eemaan goes, then this is the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah. Since the outward and inward are mutually bound together! Hence, the actions [as a genus] are a condition for the validity in the (initial) establishment of eemaan, and they [in their afraad, individual instances] are a condition for the perfection of eemaan after its (initial) establishment! But if he means that whoever diminishes anything of action, then his eemaan will go (altogether) because when something of eemaan goes, all of it goes, and thus no eemaan can be valid alongside the decrease in action, then this is the saying of the Khawaarij. POINT 4: This is what Musa Millington and the rest of this group refused to accept from me and as a result began to write all their subsequent (desperate) refutations. It indicates that they have not really thought about this matter well, and on top of this have added much lies, deception and dishonesty in the process. And all praise be to Allaah, may the salaat and salaam be upon the Messenger, his family and companions.