Part 94

THE CONCEPT OF IMAN AND RELATED ISSUES 389

belongings and their persons in the Cause of God: such are the sincere ones” (49:15); and “. . . But if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them . . .” (9:5); and “But [even] if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, they are your brethren in belief. ..” (9:11); and He also says: “And they have been commanded no more than this: to worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true [in belief]; to establish regular prayer; and to practice regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight” (98:5).

Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] said that one ought to say that he is a believer by his own confession even if he acknowledges the right to giving zakah in its totality yet will not find in every two dirhams, five, he is considered a believer. It follows that works are part of Iman and that Iman is not mere tasdiq. For one may claim that he is a believer but at the same time pray to the cross, go to churches, and commit other sins. To this the author replies that the many pieces of evidence Ahmad cited in order to refute the claim of the Jahmites did not charge one with [covert] unbelief if he committed overt sins. Rather, they said that such works signal one’s unbelief by worldly standards. However, if one cited authorized pieces of evidence that affirm that, in the Hereafter, such a man is also regarded as an unbeliever, they [the Jahmites] would argue that such pieces of evidence indicate that such a man has no knowledge about Allah. Hence they explicitly contradicted both sound reason and Islamic legislation.

Despite the indefensibility of this claim, either on the basis of reason or Islamic law, and despite the fact that, upon close examination, it fails to establish [an understanding of] belief, those who espouse it have made belief out to be a unified, indivisible entity devoid of any real existence. It is reminiscent of the claim made by members of the Jahmite sect and others with similar views concerning the unity of Allah, Whom they said is an Essence without attributes. They also held that the Qur?n was created, that Allah may not be seen in the afterlife, and that speech and other [divine] attributes are all unified and inseparable.

Their claims with regard to Allah, the divine attributes, divine speech, and belief in Allah may all be traced back to a doctrine of utter divestiture, stripping the Godhead of all attributes whatsoever. Moreover, this is an error into which many sects fell, including later ones that traced their origins back to Orthodox Islam,

Islamic jurisprudence, and the study of the prophetic traditions in accordance with the views of the founders of the four schools of Orthodox Islam [i.e., Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi‘l, Malik Ibn Anas, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal]. Nevertheless, some of these sects held extremist Murji’ite, Jahmite, and Mu‘tazilite views; and in their ignorance of the facts out of which such heresies arose, they continued seeking to combine teachings that are irreconcilable opposites. However, it is a sign of Allah’s mercy that Islamic leaders such as Malik, al-Shafi7, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifah, al-Thawri, al-Awza‘, al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd, Abu Yiisuf, and Muhammad used to refute the claims of the Jahmites about the Qur’an, Iman, and the divine attributes of the Lord. And they were in agreement, like the pious ancestors, that Allah will be seen in the Hereafter; that the Qur’an is the Word of Allah, it has not been created; and Iman must have tasdiq of the heart and the tongue. Hence, if one cursed Allah and His Messenger, everyone agrees that he was an unbeliever, both inwardly and outwardly. As for those who agreed with Jahm’s views on belief, having acceded to the arguments put forth by Abu alHassan concerning belief, they sometimes adopted the views of the pious ancestors and other authoritative figures of Orthodox Islam, while at other times they adopted the views of the scholastic theologians who held the same position as Jahm. On the question concerning the person who curses Allah and the Prophet, there is a subsect of the Hanbalites, Shafi‘ites, and Malikites who held that such behavior was utter unbelief, both outwardly and inwardly.

On the other hand, the same individuals might voice the views of those who agreed with Jahm, saying that such behavior appeared on the surface to be unbelief, though inwardly this person might be a believer with perfect belief. For belief in Jahm’s view cannot be partitioned [that is, one either has perfect belief, or no belief at all]. For this reason, when al-Qadi ‘Ayyad learned that some of his disciples took this position, he denounced it and brilliantly expounded arguments in support of the views of Malik and the Orthodox Muslims.

I have presented points relevant to this topic in my book entitled a/-Sarim alMaslil ‘ala al-Shatim al-Rasil. You will also find them making reference to the views of Islam’s authoritative scholars and the pious ancestors on questions relating to belief, and setting forth the discussion presented by the Jahmites and their followers, since they took this discussion from the writings of scholastic theologians who supported Jahm’s views on issues pertaining to belief.

THE CONCEPT OF IMAN AND RELATED ISSUES 391

In his book entitled Mandagib al-Shafi‘i [The Virtues of al-Shaf I] al-Razi mentioned [al-Shafi‘i’s] position on belief, which is the same as that of the Companions of the Prophet and their Successors. According to al-Shafi‘, the view he espoused was held unanimously by the Prophet’s Companions and their Successors. However, those who have encountered al-Shafi‘l’s view have found it to be quite dubious. The reason for this is that al-Shafi‘ was influenced by the fallacious argument put forward by the Kharijites, the Mu‘tazilites, the Jahmites, the Karramites, and the Murji’ites concerning belief; namely that if any part of a compound entity is removed, then the entire entity must cease to exist. However, he only made mention of the superficial elements of this argument. Moreover, one need find no difficulty in refuting their views. For it is taken for granted that when it comes to something like a social body, for example, such an entity may not retain all the parts of which it was once comprised. However, the loss of some of its components does not necessitate the loss of the entity as a whole.

Al-Shafi‘i, the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), the Successors, and the rest of the pious ancestors said that a sin harms the perfection of Iman. Therefore, the Prophet (pbuh) negated the Iman of sinners so long as they committed sins. According to them, negation of Iman meant that some of it leaves [the heart] and some of it remains [in the heart].

However, the Murji?ites had an aversion to the term “decrease,” if attributed to Iman. For the Murji’ites [who said that Iman is one thing], and the Kharijites and Mu‘tazilites [who said that Iman has two constituents], said that Iman being decreased means its removal from the heart. Indeed, they applied the same principle to the Oneness of Allah, and the Oneness of His Attributes.

It is interesting to note that the root of the Jahmites and Murji’ites mistakes was their belief that Iman and unbelief cannot coexist in a single person’s heart. Abu al-Hassan al-Ash‘ari stated that Muslims unanimously agreed on this belief. However, on account of this false belief they erred. Indeed, more than one Muslim leader mentioned that the pious ancestors unanimously agreed upon charging with unbelief those who said, like the Jahmites, that Iman is mere acceptance.

There are many counterparts to this; for someone may make a statement that is actually inconsistent with both the text [of the Qur’an and other sacred writings], and the consensus of the Islamic community, believing all the while that he is

being faithful to both. He does this based on the degree of knowledge and expertise in interpretation he possesses. Hence, he will be forgiven for his failure to know the correct interpretation underlying the text. So when some mistakenly believed that the belief required of all people is of a single type, some of them came to assume that this type of belief in and of itself cannot vary in degree or quality from one individual to the next. Hence, someone once said to me that belief as such can neither increase nor decrease. I replied that I noted that he used the term “as such,” as when one says: “a human being as such is a human being,” “an animal as such is an animal,” “existence as such is existence,” “blackness as such is blackness,” and such other things as this. In cases like these, we are speaking of concepts that do not, in fact, increase or decrease or vary in degree. For this person was stating that the entities to which he was referring had a sort of absolute, unqualified existence abstracted from all restrictions or specific characteristics. However, entities such as these have no objective existence; rather, they are entities that one envisions or conceptualizes in his mind. For example, one might conceptualize something that has neither existed from all eternity nor come into existence at some point in time; likewise, he might imagine something that is neither self-existent nor dependent for its existence on something outside itself. He might envision a human being who is neither existent nor nonexistent, saying that the essence [of something] as such is characterized neither by existence nor by nonexistence. Something’s essence in and of itself is something conceived by the mind; therefore, it exists'within the mind, but not outside it. As for the conceptualization of something that exists neither in the mind nor outside it, this is an impossibility. This type of conceptualization occurs only in the mind, as does that of any other impossibility, such as the world’s having been created by more than one being. Conceptualizations such as these exist nowhere but in the mind.

Similar to this would be to imagine a kind of belief that is abstracted from any particular believer, a belief stripped of all qualifications or restrictions; or to conceptualize a person who neither exists nor does not exist. For the fact is that there has never been any belief that existed in isolation from some particular believer or group of believers. Nor has there ever existed a kind of “humanness” apart from some human being to embody it. For every human being has a humanness that specifically pertains to him, and every believer has a belief that belongs specifically to him as well. Zayd’s humanness resembled that of ‘Amr, yet is not identical to it. And if the two of them participated in the category of