Part 91

THE CONCEPT OF IMAN AND RELATED ISSUES 377

sects regard it as assent of the heart, verbal testimony, and bodily works. Hence, all the above sects regard Iman as being composed of two or three elements, not one. And all of them agreed that whoever fulfills these three conditions, namely assent of the heart, verbal testimony, and bodily works, is a believer.

Abu Thawr questioned the group of people who argued that works are not part of Iman. He asked, “What does Allah want from His servants when He commands them to establish prayer and give zakah? Does He mean verbal testimony alone, or verbal testimony with works?” If the group said that Allah wanted mere verbal testimony without works, then scholars would charge them with unbelief. Some scholars said that if Allah did not want the people to perform prayer and to give zakah, and if they say that He wanted from them verbal testimony as well as works, it can be said to them, “Why then did you claim that one can be a believer if he only affirms this, although Allah wanted both of these things to be done? Do they regard one as a believer if he does all he was commanded to, without verbal testimony?” If they say no, they may be asked: “Do you regard someone as a believer if he affirms all that he is commanded, but does not do any of it?” If they say yes, one might ask: “What is the difference?” You claimed that Allah wants both verbal testimony and works, and if it is possible for one to be a believer if he abandons one of the two, then it is possible for him to be a believer if he is righteous, without verbal testimony. If they [the same group] object, asking that if a man embraces Islam and affirms the message that the Prophet (pbuh) came with, would he be regarded as a believer with this verbal testimony before the time for work arrives? The answer to him is that he may be called a believer due to his acknowledgment that he must do what he has been commanded when the time comes. However, if he affirms his belief but does not do righteous deed, he will not be called a believer.

RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF ABU THAWR CONCERNING IMAN

Abu Thawr said that one cannot be a believer unless he consistently does work along with verbal testimony. Otherwise, if he affirms his belief but does not perform works, he will not be a believer. Hence Abu Thawr’s claim revealed the necessity of both conditions, verbal testimony and works, for Iman. It also indicates that both conditions are part of religion. Hence one cannot be obedient to Allah, deserving of His reward, or praised by Him and His Messenger unless he

fulfills both conditions. Moreover, his statement refutes the argument that works are excluded from religion as well as from Iman. However, if someone says that works are part of religion and that a sinner is a believer who has taken part of the religion [i.e., Iman] and neglected the rest, his view will be reported differently. But Abu Thawr and other Sunnah jurists offer the same argument. However, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] was more knowledgeable than Abu Thawr. Therefore, Orthodox Muslims unanimously refute the views of the Karramites. But Ahmad Ibn Hanbal did not regard it as certain that the Karramites were wrong. Therefore, in his letter to Abu ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Juzjani," he said he did not think that anyone would say this [the Karramites’ view]. Ahmad’s statement is reported in al-Sunnah, The Book of the. Sunnah, by al-Khallal, which is the most comprehensive book of the sayings of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal on religious issues, even though he discussed other matters in it. Likewise, another of his [al-Khallal’s] books is the most comprehensive book on knowledge; it contains many of Ahmad Tbn Hanbal’s statements on the subject of jurisprudence.

THE LETTER OF IMAM AHMAD IBN HANBAL TO AL-JUZJANi ON THE QUESTION OF IMAN

Al-Marwazi said that he once saw Abu ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Juzjani with Abu ‘Abd Allah [Ahmad Ibn Hanbal]. Abu ‘Abd Allah had mentioned him prior to this, saying that his father had been a Murjiite, or he said that he was a man whose opinion enjoyed respect. As for Abu ‘Abd al-Rahim, he spoke highly of him. He had written earlier to Abu ‘Abd Allah from Khuras4n, asking him about belief. He mentioned this letter was based on two sources who had spoken of it on Abu ‘Abd al-Rahim’s authority and Ahmad’s answer. [The text of Ahmad’s letter follows.]

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, may Allah bless both of us and deliver us from all evil, by His Mercy. I received your letter in which you mentioned the arguments of the Murji?ites. And you should know (may Allah bless you) that it is not the custom of the Orthodox Muslims to indulge in disputes over religious matters; rather they find themselves obliged to refute others’ arguments. You should also know that in interpreting the Qur’an one should refer

'? Abu ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Juzjani (?-245 A.H.) was a jurist and a scholar of hadith and corresponded with Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal on religious matters. [Kitab al-Iman MZ, p.

THE CONCEPT OF IMAN AND RELATED ISSUES 379

to the Sunnah and the sayings of the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) in order to get a clear picture of exactly what Allah means. However, heretical thinkers interpret it without referring to the Sunnah or the sayings of the Companions of the Prophet. For a verse may be specific but have a more general application, or it may sound general, whereas it aims at a specific matter. The Prophet (pbuh) is the best interpreter of the Qur’an, followed by his Companions who witnessed the revelation of the Book. Hence, one has to refer to them for its interpretation. In other words, a verse may be specific [have a specific referent] although it also has a more general sense. An example is the following verse, in which Allah says: “Allah [thus] directs you as regards to your children’s [inheritance]: to the male a portion equal to that of two females . . .” (4:11), which is a specific verse, although it is general enough to include every son or daughter. However, the Prophet’s (pbuh) Sunnah came to specify that an unbeliever should never inherit from a Muslim.

Likewise it is related that the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) used not to give an inheritance to someone who had deliberately killed a Muslim. Therefore the Prophet (pbuh) came to clarify that this verse applies only to Muslims, not to unbelievers. On the other hand, whoever interprets it in a general sense has to give an inheritance to every son, even if he is an unbeliever or a killer; and in this case he contradicts what the Prophet (pbuh) said. To conclude, Orthodox Muslims refer to the Sunnah and the sayings of the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) to refute the false interpretations of the Qur’an espoused by heretics, the Kharijites, and the like.

Words such as mujmal, comprehensive, mutlaq, absolute, and ‘amm, general, were all included in the terminology used by authorities on Islam, such as alShafi‘i, Ahmad, Abu ‘Ubayd, Ishaq and others. When using the term mujmal, comprehensive, they do not mean that which cannot be understood from it, which was the incorrect interpretation given by some later thinkers. Rather, the term refers to that which alone is not sufficient for its practical application, even if its apparent sense has been correctly understood. This may be seen in the verse where Allah says: “Take sadaqah, alms, from their wealth in order to purify them and sanctify them with it . . .” (9:103). The surface meaning of this is clear and comprehensible; it is not an obscure verse. However, the meaning it conveys is not sufficient in and of itself for the verse to be carried out in practice. For the action it commands is a gift of charity that will have a purifying effect on them; this,

however, is something we only come to know through the explanation provided by the Messenger (pbuh). For this reason, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal cautions the scholastic theologians dealing in Islamic jurisprudence to apply the following two principles: mujmal, comprehensive, and qiyas, analogy. According to Ahmad, the most common errors theologians commit have to do with tawil, allegorical interpretation, and qiyas, analogy. By this he means that [in interpreting the Qur’4n or other authoritative religious texts], one must not make a judgment based on the most general or absolute sense before considering those factors that restrict and qualify the meaning. Nor should one interpret something on the basis of an analogy or point of comparison with something else before making certain that the meanings conveyed by the texts in question justify such comparisons. For the most widespread errors are due to people’s clinging to what they believe to be the meaning of a given term or an analogy between it and something else. For matters open to speculation cannot be translated into action until one has investigated possible conflicting meanings or interpretations with sufficient thoroughness to feel reasonably confident that his conclusions are sound. Whoever has not done so is in error. This, said Ahmad, is the truth concerning those who cling to superficial interpretations and hasty comparisons. For this reason he considered it a heretical practice to argue on the basis of the apparent meaning of a text while ignoring those interpretations offered by the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions. Moreover, he has devoted an entire book to this subject.

The same thing is true of the practice of holding tightly to the use of certain analogies and parallels while simultaneously failing to make mention of other relevant texts [from the Qur?an] and the traditions. Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] declared such a practice to be a mark of heresy, and for this reason, all the conclusions at which some people arrived were fallacious. The only sound conclusions they reached were those that were in agreement with the teachings of the pious ancestors and their followers. Allah says: “Allah [thus] directs you as regards to your children’s [inheritance] .. .” (4:11), and he [Ahmad] classified it as a general statement, whereas it is completely unrestricted in personal affairs. He generalized it by way of substitution in the following verse, in which Allah says: “.. . The freeing of [the neck] of a believing slave . . .” (4:92) to apply to all necks. He does not, however, generalize it in the same way that he generalizes the term “boy” in the preceding verse to apply to all boys. And whoever adopts this interpretation could not simultaneously interpret the text of the Qur’an merely on the basis of its