Part 69

There is no need to seek evidence from derivation or illustrations and proofs from the [speech] of the Arabs concerning the usage of the words Iman, Islam,

UNDERSTANDING IMAN AND ISLAM 287

“hypocrisy,” and “unbelief,” because the Messenger has clarified their definitions since these words are of great importance. Therefore, in explaining these words, one should refer to the definitions given by Allah and His Messenger, for they are both unequivocal and sufficient. Rather, both the specific and general meanings of these words are known to the scholars and to people. On this basis, if one looks attentively at the way the Kharijites and the Murji’ites explained the meaning of Iman, he is bound to see that their explanation contradicts that of the Messenger. He is also bound to know that obedience to Allah and His Messenger is part of the perfection of Iman and that he did not consider anyone who commits a sin to be an unbeliever [as the Kharijites say]. Let us suppose that if some people said to the Prophet (pbuh) that we believe without a doubt, in our hearts, in what you have brought to us, and we publicly testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger [this is a refutation of the Murji”ites, who do not regard deeds as part of Iman]. But we do not obey your commands or prohibitions. That is, we do not pray, fast, make pilgrimage, believe in hadith, keep the trust, keep a promise, be kind to relatives, and we will not do any of the good things that you commanded. On the contrary: we drink wine, marry the maharim, legally unmarriageable women, such as mothers and sisters, with the outward manifestation of committing adultery, kill whoever we can of your followers and your community and take their property, and we even kill you and fight alongside your enemies. How could any sane person imagine that the Prophet (pbuh) would say to them: “You are [true] believers and your Iman is complete. | will mediate for you on Resurrection Day!” And that he [the Prophet] hopes that no one of you enter Hellfire. But every Muslim knows, by necessity, that he [the Prophet] said to them: “you are a people who are in the highest state of unbelief of the message and that I will fight and kill you unless you repent from that.”

Also every Muslim knows that the Prophet (pbuh) did not classify the alcoholic, adulterer, or thief as qadhif, the slanderer, or as murtaddiin, apostates, who should be killed; rather the Qur’an and hadith show that such people should be punished differently than the murtaddin from Islam. Thus, the punishment, as mentioned in the Qur’an, of the qadhif, the slanderer, and the adulterer was flogging; and of the thief, the amputation of the hand; however, if they were considered apostates, the Prophet (pbuh) would have ordered them killed. Hence, both views may be seen to be invalid when judged by the religion of the Messenger (pbuh).

However, it should be clear that any premises that contradict statements of Allah and His Messenger are a delusion. An example of this delusion is that when the Murji?ites abandoned the knowledge of Allah’s and His Messenger’s words, they started speaking about the words Iman, Islam, and others in ways they invented themselves. They said, for example that linguistically, Iman means tasdiq, assent, and since the Messenger addressed the people in Arabic, then he must have meant tasdiq by the word Iman. Then the Murji”ites added that tasdiq could be covert [in the heart] and overt [with the tongue], or just covert. Hence, works are not part of Iman. They base this view on Allah’s saying: “They [ Josef’s brothers] said: “Oh our father! We went racing with each other, and left Josef by our belongings and a wolf devoured him; but you will never believe us even when we speak the truth”

UNDERSTANDING IMAN AND ISLAM 289

In response to this it can be said that the word Iman is repeated more than any other word in the Qur’an and the hadith. It is the essence of religion through which people come out of darkness into light, and which differentiates between the happy and the miserable and between those who are supporters and adversaries. And the entire religion follows from this Iman, and every Muslim needs to know this. Is it possible for the Messenger to have disregarded this and based Iman on the false premises that the Murji’ites claim? Of course, the quotation they have cited as evidence for the view that belief is tasdiq, assent, is taken from the Quran. Moreover, there are more widely attested sayings passed down on the authority of the Prophet concerning the meaning of belief than there are similar sayings that merely contain the word “belief.” For, unlike a simple word out of some chapter in the Qur’an, belief is something that needs to be known and passed down by all members of the community of Islam. Most believers have not memorized a single seerah (chapter of the Qur’4n], so it is not permissible to base the explanation of the origin of religion on such presuppositions as these. For this reason there have been so many disputes among those who have deviated from Allah’s straight path; they have followed their own various ways, thereby bringing disunity to their religion and splitting into sects, and they have scattered and fallen into discord after having received [Allah’s Revelations]. Such an observation is a general, absolute statement [which does not apply to any one particular group].

Therefore it is said that these two premises are not permissible. To clarify this issue, the question was raised: Who said the meaning of the words Iman and tasdiq, assent, are used interchangeably? On this basis, the correct usage does not mean that words are synonymous. For example, it would be correct if you were to say: “you are not a Muslim” in place of “you are not a believer.” It would also be correct if you said: “establish prayers” or “do prayers” in place of “be steadfast in prayer.” However, the words “establish” and “do” are not synonymous to the words “be steadfast.” Likewise, the words Iman and tasdiq, assent, are not synonymous, and this for the following reasons.

First, it is true to say: “he affirmed what the reporter said,” but not “he believed in him,” or “had belief in him.” Allah says: “But Lot had believed him. . .” (29:26); and “But none believed in Moses except some children of his people . . .” (10:83). Allah also says: “[Pharaoh] said you believe in him before I give you permission? . . .” (26:49); and “They said to [Noah]: ‘Shall we believe in you, when the meanest [of the people] follow you?” (26:111). Allah also says: “. . .

Say: He listens to what is best for you, he believes in Allah, and has faith in the believers . . .” (9:61). And as they said to Moses and Aaron: “Shall we believe in two men like ourselves, and their people are subject to us?” (23:47); and “But if you believe not in me, then keep away from me and leave me alone” (44:21).

In the question, “Do you not believe us?” the preposition li, for, is added to a transitive verb, which normally takes no preposition if the action is weakened, either by its being delayed, by its being expressed in the form of an active participle or a verbal noun, or a combination of the two. Hence someone might say, “so-and-so worships, fears and reveres Allah” [in which the verbs are treated as transitive verbs requiring no preposition]. However, if the active participle is used, one says, “he is a worshiper of his Lord,” “a reverer of his Lord,” and “a fearer of his Lord.” If, on the other hand, you were to mention the verb, yet delay the action, you might strengthen it with the preposition li, as when Allah says: “. .. And in their inscription was guidance and mercy for those who fear their Lord” (7:154); and “. .. Then fear Me alone” (16:51). In this last verse the verb is used transitively without a preposition; instead, the unattached direct object pronoun iyyaya, me, is more complete than the use of the preposition would have been; whereas in the verse quoted before this, the use of the preposition in the phrase lirabbihim, for their Lord, is more complete than it would be had the preposition been omitted and the direct object pronoun in the accusative case, rabbuhim, their Lord, had been used. This is because the unattached pronoun in the accusative case, iyyaya, is considered more complete than the attached pronoun in the genitive case. Likewise, the strengthening of the noun, which appears in the sentence by the use of the preposition li, is more fitting than leaving it as it is. This may be seen in the verse that reads: “. .. Explain to me my dream, if it be that you can interpret dreams” (12:43). One might also say: ‘abartu ru’yahu, / interpreted his vision. We also have the verse that reads: “And indeed, they have done what really enraged us” (26:55); whereas one might also say ghiztuhu, J enraged him, without the use of the preposition li before the object pronoun, rather than ghiztuh _ lahu, / enraged for him, which, with the addition of the preposition, is incorrect. And there are many more examples of the same thing. In the statement, ma anta bimusaddigin lana, you do not believe us, the preposition has been introduced because the musaddiq, active participle, is being used; otherwise one would simply say, “I believed him,” with use of an intervening preposition rather than saddaqtu lahu, with the preposition before the object pronoun. And had the verb