Clarification of Amjad Rafeeq’s speech on salafitalk.

http://aa.trinimuslims.com/showthread.php?p=46882&posted=1#post46882

This is what Amjad Rafeeq wrote on Salafitalk.

 However, it was brought to my attention through email that someone called Musa Millington has come out in defence of the faajir kadhhaab and has spoken on this issue with a view to defending and explaining the action of the accuser. I will address both these matters in the posts below inshaa’Allaah.

Now this is my post:

Recently, brother Amjad Rafeeq has posted regarding this issue in Salafitalk.net. However, it needs some cleaning up because certain matters were not explained regarding this issues put in the book. And I will show the instance of this as proof that what was written in that book could possibly lead to having errors in ‘Aqeedah:

 POINT 4: In the quote which I included from Ibn Hajar in the chapter there is an itlaaq (generalisation, absolution) in his explanation of the difference between the saying of the Salaf and the saying of the Mu’tazilah which is incorrect. So whilst Ibn Hajar correctly characterized the view of the Salaf that eemaan in the shari’ah is i’tiqaad, qawl and ‘amal, he erred by implying that all action to the Mu’tazilah is shart sihhah and all action to the Salaf is shart kamaal. This is an error because from the actions are those which are mustahabb and waajib whose omission would not invalidate eemaan, thus, they cannot be considered to be shart sihhah (upon the understanding that these terms (shart kamaal, shart sihhah) are employed by some of the Scholars to speak of individual actions, whereas others say these terms are not to be used or employed). Likewise, the Mu’tazilah do not hold that all action is shart sihhah, rather it is only that which is a kabeerah (major sin) which they hold to be shart sihhah. Hence, the generalization made by Ibn Hajar is incorrect. Whilst this is a valid observation, this particular discussion has no connection to the aqidah of the Ash’ariyyah because the Ash’aris do not hold actions are from Eemaan in the first place, and hence, the discussion of action being shart kamaal or shart sihhah is irrelevant. Upon this, the accusation that I propagated the aqidah of the Ash’aris cannot be founded on this observation since the position of the Ash’aris is that eemaan is tasdeeq lughatan (linguistically) and shar’an (legislatively) and actions are not from eemaan at all.

{My response} Actually it is relevant. Now, before we go into this, just to clarify my studies in this issue, we had to study and read Kitaab Ul Imaan by Ibn Taymeeyah in my first semester of Shar’eeyah in Madeenah (2002). And this topic is indeed a serious and deep topic which no one should enter into unless he has studied it comprehensively.

Now the statement that the particular discussion about Shart Ul Kamaal or Sihhah is irrelevant is an incorrect statement to make. Actually it is extremely relevant to this topic. Because the belief that Imaan (correction supposed to be actions) is Shart Ul Kamaal is the belief of the Murji’ah Al Fuqaha who believe that Imaan is statement and belief and that actions are a condition of completeness of Imaan. {Read the explanation of Waasiteeyah by Shaikh Khaleel Harraas}.

If one says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan then in that case he is putting actions outside of Imaan. The difference between the Irjaa of the ‘Asharis and the Irjaa of the Fuqaha is that the Murjiah Al Fuqaha do not go to the extreme with the statement that sins do not affect Imaan. 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. This is what brother Abu Fajr wanted to clarify. So insha allah, I hope that that issue is reviewed and explained so that the average reader would not slip regarding the ‘Aqeedah. Allah knows best.

Musa Millington

Imagine, I am being accused of the following:

– Coming in defense of Abu Fajr

Note: Abu Fajr’s name was mentioned only once. The rest of the speech was dedicated to clarifying the issues that saying that actions are a condition of completeness of Imaan is the belief of the Murji’ah and this should have been clarified. This is to show how the web is being weaved, bobbed and spun.

– Has spoken about the issue with a view to defending and explaining the action of the accuser.

Note: Masha Allah. I spoke about it with a “view” in order to defend the accuser. And I ask which view Oh Amjad? If you look carefully at the speech and not just rely on hearsay you would have seen that by Allah’s Fadl I studied this issue comprehensively in the University of Madeenah with the book Al Imaan by Shaikh Ul Islam Ibn Taymeeyah. And that very statement that was quoted by Ibn Hajar has to be refuted by the students. I remember the teacher gave us 13 doubts regarding Imaan and that statement of Ibn Hajar was one of those doubts that are used by the Murji’ah. So what “view” did I propagate? Is it that the issue just crawled out of my mind and reached my tongue?

As all can see. All that I said was that the fact that people can fall into Irjaa upon reading these statements and that is which Abu Fajr wished to clarify. So when the topic is written by brother Amjad we hope that he speaks the truth insha allah.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s