Part 36

THE ASH‘ARITES’ AND OTHER SECTS’ OPINIONS 149

However, it does not follow necessarily from the above that this [i.e., the word, ramz, signaling] is included in the word kalam, speech, used in an absolute sense. For the language of the [Arab] people never included any indication that the words “speech,” “utterance,” “assent,” or “disbelief,” when used in an absolute manner, encompass that which is only in the soul. For it is a certainty that anyone who has not verbally expressed his belief, despite his ability to do so, will not be referred to as a believer in the normal usage of the language. This was agreed upon by the pious ancestors, including the Prophet’s Companions and their Successors.

“Umar [Ibn al-Khattab ] may Allah pleased with him, once said: “| zawwartu, rehearsed, in my soul something that I wanted to say.” This statement may be used as an argument against them [i.e., those who claim that the word “speech” may refer to what is only in the soul]. According to Abu ‘Ubayd, the word tazwir, rehearsing, means the correction and preparation of some kind of utterance. Abu Zayd commented on this word by saying: “An utterance that has been ‘rehearsed’ is the same as an utterance that has been formed as al-kalam al-muzawwagq, an utterance pictured or visualized in the imagination; and both of them refer to an utterance that has been amended and is beautiful.” Someone else said: “I inwardly rehearsed an utterance;” that is, “I prepared something with the intent of saying it,” which implies that the person has inwardly evaluated what he wanted to say, but did not say it. Hence, such inwardly visualized words cannot be considered an actual qawl, utterance, unless they are voiced with the tongue. Prior to this it is not an utterance, but rather, words presented inwardly in the soul and evaluated with the intent to speak. Similarly, someone might determine or anticipate inwardly that he will go on pilgrimage, pray, go on a journey, and so on. In each case, what the person wants to say or do will appear as a visual image in his soul. However, it will not be considered an actual qawl, utterance, or Samal, work, unless it comes to have outward existence, just as a person does not earn the title of Hajji [a person who has gone to Hajj or on pilgrimage] or become recognized as one who prays until he performs outwardly the required acts. For this reason, forbidden words or actions that a person may be about to speak or perform will not be held against him unless he actually speaks or performs those words or actions, in which case he will be punished for them. As for each commendable word or action that one is about to speak or do, it will be reckoned as a single good deed, and if he actually speaks such words and performs such actions, they may be reckoned to his account as anywhere from ten to seven hundred praiseworthy deeds. As the Prophet (pbuh)

said: “Allah will overlook those words and deeds that My people have spoken to themselves about, provided that they do not utter them aloud or perform them.” Related to this is a verse of poetry attributed to al-Akhtal which says:

In the heart is true speech to be found While the tongue is but a guide to the heart’s intent.

According to Abu Muhammad Ibn al-Khashshab,"" there are those who deny that this verse can rightly be attributed to al-Akhtal. They say they have searched the collections of his poetry and have not been able to find this verse, while others have said that rather than kalam, speech, it should read bayan, declaration.

If someone argued for his point of view on a given issue by citing a hadith from the two collections of sound hadiths on the authority of the Prophet (pbuh), one could say that although this is a single report, it is among those sources that scholars of Islam have agreed should be believed and accepted. As for this verse, however, it has not been traced back to its originator through a reliable chain of authority, nor has it even been accepted by Arab linguists. This being the case, how could the most minor point concerning the language be established on the basis of such a verse, much less the entity referred to by the word kalam, speech? Besides this, it might be said that establishing the referents of words such as “speech,” “utterance,” and so on, does not require a quotation from a poet, since such matters have already been treated by Arab philologists, from the early days of Islam to the present. Such scholars have already established the meanings of such terms in the language, just as we are certain of the referents of such words as “head,” “hand,” and “leg.”

Moreover, those who speak the language may argue in favor of the meanings of words based on their usage of such words, not based on limitations that could be mentioned. For no Arab linguist who is a speaker of the language has ever said: “the head is thus and so,” “the hand is thus and so,” “speech is thus and so,” or “color is thus and so.” Rather, they simply utter these words in such a way that indicates their meanings, and one can become familiar with their language through their usage of them.

THE ASH‘ARITES’ AND OTHER SECTS’ OPINIONS 151

Now it is certain that if al-Akhtal was indeed the author of this verse, then he did not intend by it to speak of the entity to which the word “speech” refers. Nor was this the intent of any of the poets. Rather, what he meant—f in fact he spoke these words—was what commentators on poetry have taken him to mean, namely: that speech originates in the heart, and that the essence of speech is meaning. Therefore, if anyone says with his tongue what is not in his heart, then you should place no confidence in him. This is similar to statements that Allah has made concerning the hypocrites, who said, “say with their tongues what is not in their hearts.” Therefore the poet said:

Do not be struck with wonder at exquisite oration

Until the orator, with his words, becomes noble and pure. In the heart is true speech to be found,

While the tongue is but a guide to the heart’s intent.

The poet forbid his listeners to be filled with admiration for a speaker’s words as they appear on the surface until they know for certain what is in the speaker’s heart. This is why he said: “until the orator, with his words, becomes noble and pure.” His saying “with his words” indicates that he was referring to the outward verbal expression as kalam, words, even though he is not certain whether the inward meaning of these words resides within the speaker. These considerations may be used as an argument against them in this way or that way, for these lines of poetry contain both of these significant insights into the nature of speech. In fact, the poet’s use of the phrase ma‘a al-kalam, with his words, is used in an absolute sense. And by saying, “in the heart is true speech to be found,” he was referring to the origin of speech and the meanings one intends to convey through it. And to all these realities the tongue is a [mere] guide.

In summation, if anyone needs to discover the meanings of the words “speech,” “mare,” “the Byzantines,” “the Turks,” and all other races of human beings through quotations from poets, then no one could be further from an understanding of the means of attaining knowledge! Furthermore, the poet cited here is not one of the ancients, but a post-classical poet, not to mention his being a blasphemous Christian who worships three gods in one! Not only that, but his very name-alAkhtal is derived from a word meaning “to talk nonsense”! And as if this were not enough to discredit him, the Christians are known to have been mistaken in their understanding of what is referred to by the term “speech”; after all, they consider Jesus Christ to be self-existent and to be the very Word of God.

It has become clear that if the linguistic meaning of Iman is “assent,” and if the Qur’an means nothing by this term except that sort of assent that is a verbal utterance rather than also considering works as a part of such assent, then one must conclude that the only correct view is that of the Murji?ites—namely, that Iman refers to verbal expression and the meaning that this expression conveys. Alternatively, one must adopt the view of the Karramite sect, which considered belief to be nothing but an utterance of the tongue, since referring to such a verbal expression as a qawl, is more common in linguistic usage than referring to some meaning in the heart as a saying. As Allah says: “. .. They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts . . .” (48:11); and “And from among the people, there are some [hypocrites] who say: ‘We believe in Allah and the Last Day,’ while in fact they do not believe” (2:8). There are other similar statements that indicate a distinction between the referent of the term “saying” on the one hand, and what is only in the soul on the other; the latter is referred to as hadith, conversation. The Karramites'' said that the hypocrite, though a believer, will abide eternally in Hell because he believed outwardly but not inwardly. The only persons who shall enter Paradise are those who have believed both outwardly and inwardly.

According to the Karramites, the evidence that indicates that even the hypocrite can be described as a believer is that he is included in worldly judgments that pertain to the term Iman, belief, or mu’min, believer, as in Allah’s saying: “. . . the freeing of a believing slave . . .” (4:92). Outwardly speaking, the hypocrite speaks out about al-Jum‘ah, Friday prayer, and taharah, purification, just as he does about other characteristics that apply to those who have [truly] believed.

As for who has saddaga, believed, in his heart but has not expressed that belief with the tongue, then no judgments pertaining to believers may be applied to him, either in this life or the next. Nor is he included among Allah’s servants who are addressed in the words: “Oh, you who believed! . ..” (2:104). But even though the