Part 101

Abu ‘Amr ‘Uthman Ibn Marziiq (?-564 A.H.) was a Hanbali jurist and a mystic who used the exception extensively. [Kitab al-Iman MZ, p. 373 and al-Zirikli, vol. 1, p. 378,]

“Abd al-Wahhab Ibn al-Shaykh Abu al-Faraj al-Maqdisi (?-536 A.H.) was a chief Hanbali jurist of his time, a scholar of hadith, and a commentator of the Qur’an. [Kitab al-Iman MZ, p. 373.] Al-Mubasibi, al-Harith‘Abd Allah (?-243 A.H.), was a mystic, a theologian, and a follower of the Kullabite sect. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal opposed his position. (£/, vol. 7, pp. 466-67 and Kitab al-Iman MZ, pp. 373-74.]

This also formed the basis for the views adopted by al-Ash‘ari and his followers; for they were all supporters of Ibn Kullab’s views, according to which Allah does not speak as an act of will and power. They also hold that Allah does not [begin to] show favor toward someone after he becomes a believer or [begin to] show His wrath toward someone after he has become an unbeliever; nor does He rejoice in the repentance of the repenter after he has repented. Therefore they agreed with the teaching of the pious ancestors, that the Qur’an is Allah’s uncreated speech. They also held that this speech existed throughout all eternity, from which it followed that Allah had not uttered it by an act of will and power. However, there were disagreements among them as to the meaning of the term qadim, sempiternal, that is, eternally preexistent. They debated over whether this term bears only one meaning, or whether it refers to eternally preexisting words and letters, which then appeared in succession. Their views and those of others on this matter have been presented more fully elsewhere.

Another teaching espoused by this later group of thinkers was that one must never say gat‘an, absolutely or certainly, with regard to anything whatsoever. This was related to their extreme view on the necessity of making the exception with regard to virtually everything. This word became so odious to them, in fact, that even though they made unequivocal statements such as, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,” or that Allah is their Lord, they would nevertheless never add a term such as “absolutely” or “certainly” to such affirmations. I once met with a group of them and criticized them for this; in fact, I refused to comply with the request they made of me until they said, “certainly.” They brought me a book that contained traditions on the authority of the Prophet (pbuh), according to which he had forbidden anyone to say, “absolutely.” However, these are unauthentic traditions that were fabricated by later thinkers [desiring to use them in support of their own teachings].

The point being made here is that making the exception with regard to Iman that someone is a believer (for whatever explanation they may render for justifying that cause,) some people reject this argument with regard to things about which it is not possible to make the exception by unanimous agreement of all Muslims. This view was based on the notion that if Allah knows that the condition will change presently existing things, then the exception is made with respect to characteristics they possess at the present time. Someone might say “this is small, if Allah wills,” since Allah might cause it to become large; or one might say “that person is

Indeed, many of the scholastic theologians did not know the facts of Islam, what is in the Sunnah, or the opinions of the pious ancestors regarding many of the views they supported. Therefore, they blindly supported the surface meaning of the opinions of the pious ancestors without being aware of the essence of these opinions. Or they may have supported the opinions of the heretics. Hence, they fell into error, confusion, and disagreement because the pious ancestors condemned such views and those who held them. For such opinions opposed what is in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. And whatever opposes the Qur?an and the Sunnah is falsehood and lies, standing in contradiction to Islamic law. Allah says: “The Word of Allah is completed in Truth and Justice . . .” (6:115). So when it became widely known among these thinkers that Orthodox Muslims made the exception

* The word hawd refers to a special pool called hawd al-Rasiil, the Messenger's pool. Muhammad's followers will be allowed to drink from it on the day of Resurrection.

with affirmations pertaining to someone’s being a believer, and when they arrived at the belief that this practice must be based on the fact that belief is only that state in which someone dies (that is, the state in which someone meets his Lord), consequently they concluded that this must be how the pious ancestors themselves defined belief, and thus they attributed this view to the pious ancestors. However, the fact is that none of the pious ancestors taught this. Nevertheless, this was the view that was attributed to them due to their supposition that the pious ancestors’ practice with regard to making the exception necessitated such a view. They claimed that the Jahmite’s view of belief, which they espoused, was the same view that had been espoused by investigators and theoreticians among hadith scholars. Such a phenomenon was frequently found among them with respect to the teachings of the pious ancestors, which were opposed by some thinkers, who offered arguments in support of their views without an understanding of what the pious ancestors truly taught. Hence, if someone became acquainted with such people’s arguments apart from what the pious ancestors taught, and if it is someone who held them in high esteem due to their distinguished position, with respect to them he might have said that this was the view of the inquirers. As for the inquirers, they held that this was a groundless position that stands in contradiction to both reason and Islamic law. However, this appears frequently among the writings of some heretics and atheists. And one whom Allah has granted knowledge and Iman knows that the truth attained by later Muslims is never as complete as that which was attained by the pious ancestors, whether in regard to knowledge or works. One who has experience with theories and mental reasoning and processes knows that the doctrine of the Companions was always more sound than that of their followers. One also knows that anyone who comes up with his own view on Islam is always making an error, and that the right view is always to be found in the sayings of those who came before him.

THE ASH‘ARITES’ OPINION ON THE STATE OF BELIEF AT THE TIME OF ONE’S DEATH AND THE RESPONSE TO IT

Abu al-Qasim al-Ansari related, on the authority of Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini, regarding the view of Abu al-Hassan [al-Ash‘ari] and his companions on Iman, which was corrected to be tasdiq, assent, in the heart, that he [the latter] said that some of his friends said, concerning, al-muwafat, the state of belief at the time of

one’s death, that a condition of genuine Iman is to end one’s life ina state of belief and to meet one’s Lord in this state. Others, however, do not regard this as such a condition.

Al-Ansari said that when most of the leaders of the pious ancestors used to say that Iman is knowledge in the heart, verbal testimony of the tongue, and works of the parts of the body, the majority of them stressed the importance of the state of belief at the time of one’s death [i.e., a person must end his life as a believer by performing what is commanded and avoiding what is prohibited]. These leaders stressed the importance of belief at the time of one’s death, for those persons whom Allah does not mention that they will enter Paradise. But if this is mentioned of someone, then he is certainly a believer, just as the Prophet’s ten Companions [who were promised Paradise] are [true believers]. He [al-Ansari] said that those with a proper understanding of the truth said that Iman is tasdig in the heart. He also mentioned their dispute over the state of one’s belief at the time of death, whether this state is a condition for judging the soundness and genuineness of Iman, and whether this is crucial in determining Allah’s judgment. It follows that those who said that this is a condition for judging Iman made the exception [i.e., they said, “if Allah wills]. This does not mean that they doubted the genuineness of one’s belief in the oneness of Allah or one’s knowledge of Him; rather they said that they did not know which Iman we have in the present: is it recognized by Allah? That is, will we benefit from it in the Hereafter and reap its blessings?

If they are asked: “Are you true believers?” or “Do you say, ‘if Allah wills,’ or “We hope. .. .””? in reply they would say: “We are believers, if Allah wills.” By making this exception, they meant that this matter was left to Allah’s judgment. For Iman is taken into account in Allah’s judgment if it is a sign of deliverance and the knowledge of salvation. However, if the possessor of Iman was (Allah forbid) judged by Allah to be among the unfortunate, then his Iman was considered devoid of value. According to them, there was no difference between saying, “I am definitely a believer who will enter Paradise,” and saying, “I am a true believer.”