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

[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.