Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaat

[Abdullah]

Asalaam alaykum Wrwb

I have heard allot of muslims asha'ira or Maturidi's or salaafi's claiming they are upon ahle sunnah wal jamaah and and claiming the other is not ahle sunnah. for this reason I would like to start this thread insha allah to gain a better understanding regarding this subject.

I would like to say if you can't back up your claims with refference and evidence please don't post.

I think it would be good insha allah to start from the origin of ahle sunnah wal jamaah insha Allah.

1) What is the evidence for Ahle sunnah wal Jamaah?

Jazak Allah kair for all those who will be participating in advance.

[Samira]

wa alaikumusalaam.

I was also wondering this, cos there are different groups who label themselves ahlus sunnah, but then also give themselves another label, like 'salafi', ''sufi' etc.

[Perestroika]

In my understanding, all four Sunni mazhabs are Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamaa. They have more or less the same aqida. The difference comes in fiqh, because some ahadith would reach some Imams and not others. Some would consider a hadith weak, others good. Some would use their own ijtihad instead of weak hadith others would use weak ahadith before ijtihad or the practice of inhabitsnats of Medina. Basically, for us the common people, I think its OK to follow a mazhab, not blindly however, and then we are from ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamaa. If you can get hold of a book by Abu Amina Bilal Philips called "Evolution of fiqh" many things would be clear, concerning the differences in fiqh between mazhabs. As to Aqida, then only the Salaf had the best understanding of this Deen.

[Abdullah]

Asalaam alaykum

What about imam Abu Hanifah, I have come across some people who say he was ma'turidi and held that actions are not part of imaan and therefore they say he is not ahle sunnah. :?:

[Abuz Zubair]

As-Salaamu 'Alaikum,

Imam Abul-Hasan al-Ash'ari and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi came after the four Imams and they both had different approach on Islamic creed. Al-Ash'ari was a Mu'tazili for more than half of his life. He then changed and followed the creed of Ibn Kullab, who also had a philosophical approach to Aqeeda. Towards the end of his life, he abandoned that for the creed of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and wrote a book called al-Ibaanah, however, the Ash'aris remained steadfast on his previous Aqeeda of Ibn Kullab. Abu Munsur al-Maturidi, like al-Ash'ari also had a philosophical approach to Aqeeda, unlike the four Imams.

One more thing to notice is that the famous four Madhabs have little to do with the Ash'ari and Maturidi beliefs. For if we read the biographies of Ash'ari scholars we find that they describe themselves as: 'Hanafi in Furu' Maturidi in Usul', or 'Shafi'i in Furu' and Ash'ari in Usul'. Therefore, even they do not claim to be the followers of any of the four Imams in Usul (beliefs).

This is why you find amongst the Hanafis (as mentioned by al-Lakhnawi al-Hanafi in al-Raf' wa al-Takmeel) that they are of 5 types:

1) 'The complete Hanafis' – meaning those who agreed with Abu Haneefa in Usul and Furu' – and they are the Salafis; like Abu Haneefah, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad al-Shaibani, Zufar, Ibrahim Ibn Tahman, al-Qasim al-Mas'udi, Yahya ibn Zakariyah, Hafs al-Qadhi, al-Jawzajani, Mu'alla al-Razi, Shaddad al-Qadhi, 'Abdullah ibn Dawud, Hisham al-Razi, al-Laith al-Balkhi, Ibrahim al-Bahili, Yahya ibn Aktham, Muhammad al-Zarqan, al-Hakam al-Khaza'i, Muqatil al-Balkhi, and of course, Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi.

2) The Mu'tazili Hanafis – like; Isma'il ibn Hammad the grandson of Abu Haneefa was from those who put the scholars of Sunnah like Ahmad ibn Hanbal on trial during the Fitnah of 'the creation of the Quran', Bishr al-Marrisi and his student Ibn Shuja' al-Balkhi, Ibn Abi Du'ad the famous Mu'tazili rival to Imam Ahmad, whom the Muslims cursed the day Imam Ahmad died, and many others. In fact most of those who put Ahl al-Sunnah on trial were the Mu'tazila from the Hanafis; and because they would lie upon Imam Abu Haneefa with regards to this issue, many from the Imams of Sunnah turned bitterly against Imam Abu Haneefa himself. But obviously, he was free from any shade of I'tizal.

3) The Shi'a Hanafis; like Ibn Sina about whom Ibn al-Salah said: He was a devil from human devils.

4) The Zaidi Hanafis

5) The Murji'a Hanafis (by that I mean anyone who strayed from Abu Haneefa's stance on Iman, whether they are Murjia or Karramiyah), like Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, or Muhammad ibn Karram al-Jistani (the leader of al-Karramiyah sect).
(Taken from Usul al-Deen 'Ind al-Imam Abi Haneefa by al-Khumayis)
And the story goes the same with the Malikis, Shafi'is and to much lesser degree, the Hanbalis, as well.

Also, Imam Abu Haneefah did fall into Irja and differed with the rest of the Sunni community in saying that actions are not part of Iman. This is because most of his teachers and his environment was affect by Irja. However, he is not alone in falling into such error, nor does it exclude him from Ahl al-Sunnah or belittle his status, for many scholars of the past and present fell into such errors, and they are all regarded to be from the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah. Just as a tiny bit of najasah falling into an ocean does it defile it, the error of Abu Haneefa in this issue, dos not affect his imamate in the least.

wasalam

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

A very brief look at the ash'aree 'aqeedah

In brief the asha'irah are mu'awilah in the siffaat,murji'ah jahmeeyah in the issue of imaan and jabareeyah in the issue of qadr.

1-In the sifaat they distort all the sifaat with the exception of 7 and some of them affirm 17(like the early asha'irah)So what do they do with the attributes like the hand and eyes and shins and al-istiwaa' well they explain them away as being symbolistic and not literal for example they say that al-istiwaa' means al-isteelaa' meaning the conquering which means allah didnt raise above his throne but he conquered his throne and they depend on the poem by an iraaqi christian to affirm this!Another principle the asha'irah use is that the apparent meanings of attributes like the hand and face are kufr because it neccesitates that allah is like his creation , so they became mushabihah(anthropomorphisists) before they were mua'wilah.how??well they assumed that if allah has a hand then it must like the creations hands and this is the essence of tashbeeh!!!!so they ranaway from this to make ta'weel or what att-ahreef.So in conclusion the asha'irah affirm all of allah's names but only seven of his sifaat and mainly due to the fact that they can be accepted logically.

2-The asha'irah 's main sourse in 'aqeedah is the human intellilect and and some asha'irah like al-juwainee and al-eejee and as-sanoosee clearly says that if the 'aql contradicts the naql then we must give the 'aql precedence!so they took the human intellilect as a taaghoot.

as-sanoosee says in his explanation of the usool of their 'aqeedah"to accept the apparent texts of the book and the sunnah in the area of 'aqeedah is kufr!"

3-As for the issue of qadr well the asha'irah themselves are confused in this to the extent that arraazi said"just say that the human is internally majboor(forced) but externally he mukhair(has free will)meaning that they reject in reality the law of cause and effect and say that if one was hit another person he wouldnt feel pain because the person hit him but it is beacuse allah created the pain at that moment!!!!!!!
4-In the issue of imaan they say that imaan is only in the heart and they call it attasdeeq-belief and that the statement of the tongue and actions of the limbs are not from imaan so there for imaan doesnt increase or decrease and that kufr can only ocur by rejction of the heart.However the asha'irah do say(unlike the pure jahmees)that actions are obligatory


The asha'irah have many issues in their corrupt 'aqeedah which will take volumes to explain.wallahu a'lam

One more thing i forgot to mention is the asha'irah's definiton of la ilaaha illallah-where they saw it means-"no one is capable of creating or inventing but allah" and the butlaan(faksehood) of this definition is known to all.

books on this topic for those who want to know this bid'ah in detail
1-manhajul-asha'irah fil-'aqeedah- by shaikh safar al-hawaali
2-mawqif ibnu taymiyah min al-asha'irah-shaikh abdurahmaan-aal-mahmood
3-and the books of ibn taymiyah and ibnul-qayyim in the issue of sifaat.


wallahu a'lam

wassalamu alaikum

[Abdullah]

Asalaam alaykum

Jazakallah for your contributions.
What is your understanging regarding aqeedah Tahawiyah? is that the aqeedah of ahle sunnah? :roll:

[ali]

Abdullah said
What about imam Abu Hanifah, I have come across some people who say he was ma'turidi and held that actions are not part of imaan and therefore they say he is not ahle sunnah.

Some of those Imaams have fallen into errors. Just like Ibnul-Jawzee, Imaam an-Nawaawee, Ibn Hajr al-Asqalanee and others. For the most part it was due to either ijtihaad, lack of bringing forth evidences o them, or other reasons. But they did not call to these beleifs rather they may have sated these statements in their books. There is a difference between those who fell into error, while they didn't know it was and error or due to ijtihaad, or due to their rendering a hadeeth saheeh when it was actually da'eef or fabricated, versus those who persist (after naseeha, warning, and admonition) came from those of knowledge to them and call to something not fromthe kitaab wa sunnah.

asalamu alikum

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

As-sallamu 'alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

Regarding Imaam Abu Hanifah(Rahimahullah) and his stance on Imaan. then there is also an opinion that he did change his understanding as well as the fact that he did understand actions to be part of Imaan as he would do takfeer upon the one who would for example help dress a person to go an worship in a church etc..this I have heard is in the book dhahiratul-Irjaa but I haven't had a chance to read it. Also Aqeedah tahawiyyah is the standard book of aqeedah with what I have seen-the most widely used sharh is that of Ibn Abi al-'Izz al-Hanafi(rh) obviously there may be differences in some issues like imaan, but this does not relegate it as one of the must have books as part of the collections of the muslims! especially when people are seeking to corrupt the Islamic aqeedah by using nonsense language and terminologies when they are clearly out of depth! Casting shubuhat upon the qati'e aqaa'id of the deen and saying its ikhtilaf because a few people after the salaf said so! Ajeeb!

Let them blow away like the wind blows past our ears....or in these peoples cases when the wind blows out of places the sun doesn't shine...

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaamulekum,can the muqalid who doesnt study under sheikhs, doesnt know the arabic language well, and bases his understanding from hearsay and translations have the ability to say that the mujthahids of the past were mistaken in this issue?

in the other thread, abu zubair has written a very good article, but like when some brothers say 'oh are you saying ibn taymiyyah was wrong?' or 'are you saying that imam nawawi was wrong?'

maybe they were both write and that this is a form of PERMISSIBLE differing?

ALLAHUALIM

[ali]

i dont quit understand the contexts of ur post ash salafee.

If a scholar were to produce a risaalah on how to make salaatul-witr or anything , and it was translated into english or whatever language, then the person of that langauge does not have to know arabic in order to understand what the risaalah is about.

So from the books of rijaal, let say a chapter was translated or from the books of aqeeda and in it the imaams have said that this imaam has erred in this issue. the reader of whatever language does not have to know arabic in order to know that this Imaam said that and he doesn't have to know arabic to side with him on the issue if the proofs are presented as well.

[sultanmuradII]

Salaam,

I have revived this thread because I am researching a matter, namely the differences amongst the scholars regarding what constitutes imaan. I would like to ask Abu Zubair (and who ever else has any information) regarding what he stated:1) 'The complete Hanafis' – meaning those who agreed with Abu Haneefa in Usul and Furu' – and they are the Salafis; like Abu Haneefah, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad al-Shaibani, Zufar, Ibrahim Ibn Tahman, al-Qasim al-Mas'udi, Yahya ibn Zakariyah, Hafs al-Qadhi, al-Jawzajani, Mu'alla al-Razi, Shaddad al-Qadhi, 'Abdullah ibn Dawud, Hisham al-Razi, al-Laith al-Balkhi, Ibrahim al-Bahili, Yahya ibn Aktham, Muhammad al-Zarqan, al-Hakam al-Khaza'i, Muqatil al-Balkhi, and of course, Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi.
Also, Imam Abu Haneefah did fall into Irja and differed with the rest of the Sunni community in saying that actions are not part of Iman.5) The Murji'a Hanafis (by that I mean anyone who strayed from Abu Haneefa's stance on Iman,Did the 'complete Hanfis' listed above also fall into Irjaa', if so did they all also remain from Ahl-us-Sunnah?

Are the 'Murji'a Hanfis' from Ahl-us-Sunnah? therefore how does some one determine when some one is or is not from Ahl-us-sunnah with regards to their understanding on Imaan?

w/s

[Abu_Abdallah]

al-Salamu 'Alaikum,

The Kufans of the Salaf who stated that Imân consist of speech (qawl) and action ('amal) are:

Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibn Abi Layla, Sufyan b. 'Uyaynah, Waki' b. al-Jarrâh, Abu Nu'aym al-Fadl b. Dukayn, 'Ubaydallah b. Musa al-'Absi, Ahmad b. Yunus, Qabîsah b. 'Uqbah, Abu Bakr b. 'Ayyâsh, Zuhayr b. Mu'awiyah, Zâ'idah b. Qudamah, Jarir b. Abd al-Hamid, Shu'ayb b. Harith, al-Nadhr b. Shumail, Yazid b. al-Sâ'ib, Abdallah b. Numair, Abdallah b. Abi Shaybah and 'Uthman b. Abi Shaybah at the least.

Whether most of these could be counted as Hanafites is a open question. I hope however that you can make use of it.

wa-Salamu 'Alaikum

[waziri]

Here is a lecture in which the speaker (Riyadh ul haq) explains the position of Imam Abu Haneefa raheem ullah on Iman.

The lecture is the second of two on the hadith of Jibril,the speaker talks about Iman increasing and decreasing and actions being part of Iman.


http://downloads1.nadeemdownloads.com/ISLAMIC%20SERVER%2005/25-5-05%20-%20Abu%20Yusuf%20Riyadh%20Ul-Haq%20-%20Hadeeth%20of%20Jib'ril%2002.wma

I would appreciate it if one of the knowledgable brothers could listen to this lecture and then share their thoughts JazakAllah khair.

wasalam


ps there is a brief theme tune at the begining of this lecture this has been added by the people who have uploaded the lecture to the internet,the speaker does not regard any form of music to be permissible.

[waziri]

I would appreciate it if Brother Abu Zubair or brother sharif abu jafar would listen to the lecture ive posted above.Only the first 20 minutes needs to be listened to as that is when the speaker explains the issues of the increase and decrease of Iman and the actions being part of Iman issue.

JzakAllah khair

wasalam

[Abuz Zubair]

Sorry brother, I am not able to download this, but could you briefly tell us what he says?

wasalam

[Abu_Abdallah]

I've listened to it, i.e. the part when he started about Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah be pleased with him and all of us, and the issue of Imân. I have made some notes which are not with me right now, but basically what he repeats often is that the differences between the A'immat al-Salaf and Imam Abu Hanifah is simply a difference in wording, not one in meaning. And the speaker tries to explain the differences by referring to the various - according to him legitimate - understandings of Imân of scholars, i.e. with 'amal, without it etc. He also argues that Imam Abu Hanifah is from the Ahl al-Sunnah - and that is obvious of course! - and that there are elements in society from which he heard *frequently* the banning of this noble Imam from the Ahl al-Sunnah, and which he condemns (and we too) but without providing evidence for these observations. Insha'Allah I shall mention later tonight what he stated and then brother Abuz Zubair can point out the obviou mistakes of the preacher..

This is what I've learned from two times listening and notes. May Allah forgive me if I made a mistake in noting what the speaker said. He says:

a) That Imam Abu Hanifah didn't have an incorrect definition of Iman

b) He alleges that others said that whosoever upholds this definition of Iman (i.e. of verbal attestation and inner conviction , without 'amal - the definition of the Imam Abu Hanifah) is corrupt in 'Aqidah and out of the pale of the Ahl al-Sunnah

c) He said that some - with emphasis on some - 'Ulama chose to say that Iman is attestation of the tongue, belief in the heart and action, while Imam Abu Hanifah believed that Iman is attestation of the tongue and belief of the heart.

d) He said also that this definition of Iman by Imam Abu Hanifah can be exemplified as such: that is one says the kalimat and the shahadatayn by his tongue and also have the belief in his heart of the certainty and the truthfulness of what he says then he is a believer. And then he says about this:

"And this is but a definition of the word Iman"

e) He also claims that those who uphold the three-form definition (attestation, conviction and action), that even they say that if a person says the Shahada and believes what he states, then he is also a believer according to them - even if the person hasn't prayed any Salat since the time he has become a Muslim. And then he concludes about this:

"And Imam Abu Hanifah says the same"

f) He also alleges that the only people who say that the failure to act upon any of the fundamentals of deeds, and those who believe that a major sin will may render a person a disbeliever, are the groups of the Mu'tazilah and the Khawarij.

g) He also says that the whole of the Ahl al-Sunnah believe that if a person says the Shahada and believes in what he states he is a believer, even if he doesn't pray, gives zakat, nor performs the hajj etc. he is an extremely sinful person and for every sin that he commits he earns any punishment whatever he earns, and he will suffer for that in the hereafter - unless Allah chooses to forgive him out oh His mercy. But if he doesnt do all that of obligatory actions, he will not become a Kafir - and he adds - that is all Imam Abu Hanifah said by defining Iman.

h) He then says about everything I mentioned in paraphrase:

"So the truth is that this difference of opinion is verbal: there is no true difference."

i) He then adds: "Similarly, the question whether Iman increases or decreases" and then says that Imam Abu Hanifah got attacked for that also, adding:

"All the major 'Ulama of Islam have confirmed in works that this difference is also a difference of wording, and there is no real difference between the Imams on this issue."

j) He says that Imam Abu Hanifah did say that Iman doesn't increase or decrease, however, that doesn't mean that everyones Iman is the same (i.e. everyone certainty, faith, conviction is the same).

k) He also says that when Imam Abu Hanifah says that Iman doesn't increase or decrease he is talking about the essence of Imân, meaning:

"A person is either a believer or a disbeliever. Whether his Iman is strong or weak, that is a different question. But in terms of quantity Iman is the same: either a person believes or he doesnt believe."

l) He admits that, however, ones actions may increase a man's faith, and his certainty too, and his Iman may grow stronger, and according to him

"..and [through] lack of good deeds one's Iman grows weak untill, Allah forbid, there may even come a stage where he's turned away so far from the Din and remains only anominal Muslim, and this lack of action and sin may lead him to outright Kufr.."

m) He then repeatedely argues that what Imam Abu Hanifah said has to do with the 'essence of Iman', and that a Muslim is either a believer or a disbeliever. However, in terms of strenght or weakness, Iman does increase or decrease.

n) Iman, so the speaker says, increases or decreases only in quality and not in quantity he says.

o) He says also that the increase and decrease of which other Ulama speak (i.e. those who say attestation, conviction and action), that they mean with increase and decrease not the essence of Iman of which Imam Abu Hanifah speaks, but the quality of Iman, unill he says:

"Therefore, the true is that: all the 'Ulama are speaking on one and the same thing, and using different terminology, and there is no real disagreement."

p) He adds then about the above mentioned 'terminology-difference':

"And all the major 'Ulama of Islam have confirmed this in their works. That, these differences, of whether Iman increases or decreases, and of whether actions are a part of Iman or not: this is only a verbal difference. There is no real difference in this issue."

q) About the istithnâ' (i.e. saying Insha'Allah when declaring to be a believer) he says about it the same.

r) He then alleges also that those who permit and others who forbid this (i.e. istithnâ') they meant both something else: one mean the strenght of Iman and the other the essence of Iman.

s) He also says:

"One can not say: I believe in Allah, Insha'Allah" or "I believe in the Quran, Insha'Allah" or "I believe in the Prophet Muhammad, Insha'Allah", because:

"..here we are not speaking about the strenght or the quality of faith, we are [rather] speaking about the essence of belief, whether you believe or don't believe."

t) And about the previous he says:

"And everyone agrees to that (i.e. in this formulated view) and there is no difference of opinion regarding that."

u) He then adds:

"And when others have said that it IS permissible to say Insha'Allah, after saying that I am a believer.. then they are not referring to the essence of belief, they are referring to the quality of belief."

v) He claims that the famous Ayat in the argument about islam vs iman & muslim vs mu'min in fact meant that the Arabs [who became just Muslims as mentioned in the Qur'an] who claim to have Iman, that this Iman that was denied to them was like the Iman of 'Umar b. al-Khattab and his likes, and that didn't have this (i.e. not having reached that stage of conviction, certainty and faith), not that they were unbelievers. He then seems to contradict the Qur'an, saying:

"Although Allah confirmed their Islam, Allah denied their Iman which is of a loftier rank. Allah said to them: Your Iman has yet not entered your hearts. That didn't meant they were disbelievers. They were Muslims. They were believers. But that kind of strong faith and that conviction and that certainty of quality, that was absent, because that has not yet entered their hearts. Allah denied that because that's what they claimed about themselves. Otherwise, they were not declared non-believers."

w) He says as some kind of a conclusion:

"All three subjects, all three questions, of whether a person can say Insha'Allah after saying I am a believer or that he can't, of whether actions form an integral part of Iman or not, and of whether Iman actually increases or decreases, the truth is: that all three questions there is no disagreement, there is no difference of opinion, amongst the 'Ulama of Islam, the 'Ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah. And any difference that may appear to exist is only verbal. And the major 'Ulama of Islam and the majority have confirmed that this difference is verbal. Therefore when Imam Abu Hanifah - and many other 'Ulama - say that Iman is belief in ones heart and attestation with ones tongue, repeating the Shahada with ones tongue, they are referring to the essence of Iman; they are not referring to the quality of Iman."

x) He also says a while after this concerning the increase of decrease of Iman and the fact there are many indications of this in the Qur'an while Imam Abu Hanifah said something else:

"And its foolish for anyone to imagine that someone of the calibre of Imam Abu Hanifah would deny those verses. The truth is, he is reffering to: the essence of Iman not increasing or decreasing. And all the 'Ulama agree to this."

y) He then alleges that many people make this subject of Iman a mean to attack Imam Abu Hanifah by it and that they continue to do so. He also says that in this country (I guess the UK) people give lectures and audiences, even entire speaches, on this and say therein that Imam Abu Hanifah erred in Iman - and this they do only to attack Imam Abu Hanifah in it. Since I do not live in the UK, can someone tell me if this is true?

Well, I would like to say something about this of what I've learned. But Insha'Allah brother Abu Zubair can clear some things up based upon what he learned. And with his permission I will add what I know from what is right or wrong concerning all this, based upon - as the speaker emphasis himself in his lecture but what I left out - firm ground and in depth knowledge, as stated by the 'Ulama al-Kibar and the Muqaqqin of this religion.

[waziri]

JazakAllah khair brother Sharif Abu Jafar,I think you have accurately outlined the lecture may Allah reward you.Now if our brother Abu Zubair would be kind enough to go over the notes and give us a explanation and shed some light on them I would be greatfull.

Points f)and g) are of some concern to me as I was of the understanding that there is a strong view among the salaf and early ulema that if one fails to perform salah then such a person would be out of the fold of Islam,the speaker said that the only people who would regard a person who fails to act on the fundamentals as a disbeliever are the khawarij and mutazilla.

As for Iman increasing and decreasing I think his explanation of Imam Abu Haneefas position was quite good,because if there are many ayah in the quran which talk about the increase and decrease of Iman Im sure Abu haneefa would have been aware of them.
The rasool Of Allah salalahu alayhi wasalam told us that Iman is to believe in Allah,the angels,books,messengers,the last day and predestination, the speaker states that this is the essence of Iman and this does not increase or decrease,but the quality and strength and conviction of Iman does.And just to further clarify he said that Imam Abu Haneefa was talking about the essence of Iman as described in the hadith of Jibril when he said that Iman does not increase or decrease and not the strength and quality of Iman which does.

wasalam

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaamulekum,

Thanks for the transcript brother Sharif :)

But aren't they right when they say that Imaan, in order to have it, one must beleive in the heart and say it with the tongue, whats wrong with that? where does action fit in here?

If someone takes the shahadah , becoming a new Muslim, and then he dies via a heart attack, does he go Jannah? After all he never got a chance to do any action.

Thanks
WS

[danish al hyderabadee]

Imam At tahawi also says this when relating the beliefs of Imam Abu Haneefa and Muhammad Ash Shaybani and Abu Yusuf. I was just reading the sharh to Tahawiyya by Ibn Abil Izz Al Hanafi and it seems that he explains it as well but in a slightly different way.

You can have the belief in your heart and you can speak it, it is imperative that you act upon it. In other words the way we say it - if you talk the talk then walk the walk. obviously if you believe in soemthing, you are goign to put it in your speech, and when you say something you are goign to act upon it. The only way you wont act upon it is if you really didnt beleive in it in the first place, or you have other issues due to the environment or lack of iman to act upon it.

Also cant your speech be considered part of your actions???

[sultanmuradII]

Salaam,

Since I have not recieved clarification on the matters I questioned, I wish to repeat my self. The following are quotes from Abuz Zubair's post:
Imam Abu Haneefah did fall into Irja and differed with the rest of the Sunni community in saying that actions are not part of Iman.
1) 'The complete Hanafis' – meaning those who agreed with Abu Haneefa in Usul and Furu' – and they are the Salafis; like Abu Haneefah, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad al-Shaibani, Zufar, Ibrahim Ibn Tahman, al-Qasim al-Mas'udi, Yahya ibn Zakariyah, Hafs al-Qadhi, al-Jawzajani, Mu'alla al-Razi, Shaddad al-Qadhi, 'Abdullah ibn Dawud, Hisham al-Razi, al-Laith al-Balkhi, Ibrahim al-Bahili, Yahya ibn Aktham, Muhammad al-Zarqan, al-Hakam al-Khaza'i, Muqatil al-Balkhi, and of course, Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi.
1 - Did the 'complete Hanfis' listed above also fall into Irjaa', if so did they all also remain from Ahl-us-Sunnah?
5) The Murji'a Hanafis (by that I mean anyone who strayed from Abu Haneefa's stance on Iman,
2 - Are the 'Murji'a Hanfis' from Ahl-us-Sunnah? therefore how does some one determine when some one is or is not from Ahl-us-sunnah with regards to their understanding on Imaan?

JZK, w/s

[Abuz Zubair]

Imam Abu Haneefah did fall into Irja and differed with the rest of the Sunni community in saying that actions are not part of Iman.

1) 'The complete Hanafis' – meaning those who agreed with Abu Haneefa in Usul and Furu' – and they are the Salafis; like Abu Haneefah, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad al-Shaibani, Zufar, Ibrahim Ibn Tahman, al-Qasim al-Mas'udi, Yahya ibn Zakariyah, Hafs al-Qadhi, al-Jawzajani, Mu'alla al-Razi, Shaddad al-Qadhi, 'Abdullah ibn Dawud, Hisham al-Razi, al-Laith al-Balkhi, Ibrahim al-Bahili, Yahya ibn Aktham, Muhammad al-Zarqan, al-Hakam al-Khaza'i, Muqatil al-Balkhi, and of course, Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi.
1 - Did the 'complete Hanfis' listed above also fall into Irjaa', if so did they all also remain from Ahl-us-Sunnah?
I cannot comment on them all, but some of them (if not many of them), certainly did fall into Irja of Imam Abu Hanifa, such as al-Tahawi in his ‘Aqida and its Sharih Ibn Abil-‘Izz.

By agreement of the scholars, Abu Hanifa fell into Irja, and therefore opposed the rest of the Salaf, as well as those of the Salafi-Hanafis who followed him such as the two aforementioned.

The question then comes, was this difference superficial or real?

The scholars are divided over this.

Those who say that the difference is superficial are scholars Ibn Abil-‘Izz al-Hanafi and al-Dhahabi, et al.

Those who say that the difference is real are most of the Salaf, and many of the latter scholars such as ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani, al-Alusi al-Hanafi, al-Mubarakpuri and al-Albani.

As for Ibn Taymiyya, it is difficult to categorise him in either of the above camps.

I personally feel that the difference was real because of the following arguments:

1) Most of the criticisms from the Salaf directed towards the Murjia was in fact directed towards the jurists and the ascetics of Kufa, and not the pure Murjia. This is also substantiated with the fact that Irja began from Kufa, and in fact, the Taba’in such as al-Nakh’i, publicly censured such jurists in his time. Amongst those who were criticised for Irja, in fact, even accused of inventing Irja is the Sheikh of Imam Abu Hanifa, Hammad. Hammad is reported to have said that if my teacher al-Nakh’i was alive, he would also have followed me in Irja.

2) Irja of Imam Abu Hanfia was a fact recognised by the prominent figures of Ahl al-Hadeeth, and thus their hostile attitude towards Abu Hanifa. This includes people like al-Bukhari (who narrated from khawarij but not murjia), al-Ash’ari, ‘Abdullah b. Ahmad and many others.

3) The reality of difference emerges when we compare between the results of the Salaf’s definition of Iman, and the Murji definition of Iman, hence for example;
i) The Salaf believed that Iman is composed of actions as well, the Murjia believed otherwise
ii) The Salaf therefore believed that Iman increases and decreases, the Murjia believed at remains constant
iii) The Salaf believed that it is permissible for one to say: I am a believe, InshaaAllah, while the Murjia disagreed
iv) The Salaf believed, and there are many narrations regarding this, that if one decides not to pray at all, in spite of acknowledging the obligation, is not considered a Muslim. In fact, the companions had a consensus formed over the issue, when Abu Bakr decided to fight the wars of apostasy. The Murjia believed that even if one is put to the sword for not praying, he dies a Muslim! This of course brings an important question: If one is adamant in abandoning prayer, and ready to die for his cause, what kind of Iman is left in his heart?

Those who say that the difference is only superficial, they use one similarity between the Salaf and the Murjia, and that is: both of the camps claim that the one who commits major sins is deserving of Allah’s punishment.

Although, this is surely where the Murjia of the jurists agree with the Salaf, but this agreement alone does not make the difference superficial. Rather, one must also look at other real difference, some of which I mentioned above.

Another point that someone could possibly use to suggest that the difference is superficial, is al-Tahawi’s statement in his ‘Aqida, that to love the companions is from Iman.

The problem with this, Ibn Abil-‘Izz pointed out, is that love is an action, so how could it be a part of Iman? But he then suggests that perhaps al-tahawi meant it allegorically, and not that literally loving companions is part of Iman.

This might be the case, but this is something that really highlights the contradiction in the hanafi-murji (non-maturidi) though, which is that they emphasise on the actions of the heart, and often even seem to include them in Iman.

And if they really do include the actions of the heart into Iman, then they must also include the actions of the limbs into Iman as well, for both actions go together.

A point similar to this is when al-Tahawi says in his ‘Aqida while defining Iman, that people in the fundamentals of Iman are all equal, but vary with respect to taqwa, khashya, etc.

Here, al-Tahawi clearly seems to imply that since Iman has fundamentals (asl) where people are all equal, Iman also must have branches (far’) such as taqwa, khashya where people vary.

Hence, although it is not at all explicit, it is an implicit admission that Iman has an asl (basics) and far’ (branches), and in the branches of Iman people vary; therefore, people are not equal in their Iman.

If one looks at such ambiguous statements, I can seem why one might consider it a superficial difference. However, I still feel strongly inclined to the view that the difference is real…

An important point to note here is that Imam Abu Hanifa falling into this error does not take away anything from his imamate and fiqh that we still feel indebted to.

What we should realise is that Imam Abu Hanifa is not being singled out in an Anti-Hanafi conspiracy, rather if one delves in the science of Hadeeth, specially the study of rijal, he will come across many hadeeth giant, some of whom were accused of being shia (moderate ones, and not rafida), some being accused of Qadar, some being accused of Khuruj, etc.

What is fascinating about early scholarship and academia, that everyone was objective and balanced. If they criticised a narrator for Qadar or Khuruj, etc, that did not necessarily entail that all of their ahadeeth are rejected. SubhaanAllah, the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil were balanced and just with Allah’s creation, giving everyone his due right.

2 - Are the 'Murji'a Hanfis' from Ahl-us-Sunnah? therefore how does some one determine when some one is or is not from Ahl-us-sunnah with regards to their understanding on Imaan?
We must understand that just because a person errs in one creedal issue, he is not to be ejected completely outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah. Rather, one should say: such-and-such differed with Ahl al-Sunnah in this particular issue, whiling agreeing with them in the rest.

Wallahu alam

[Saif ul Haq]

As-sallamu 'alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

Regarding Imaam Abu Hanifah(Rahimahullah) and his stance on Imaan. then there is also an opinion that he did change his understanding as well as the fact that he did understand actions to be part of Imaan as he would do takfeer upon the one who would for example help dress a person to go an worship in a church etc..this I have heard is in the book dhahiratul-Irjaa but I haven't had a chance to read it.


as salaamu 'alaykum wa ruhmatuallaahi wa barakatuhu

I have read this also but it was from at-Tameed of ibn 'Abdul Bar in 9/247.

iii) The Salaf believed that it is permissible for one to say: I am a believe, InshaaAllah, while the Murjia disagreed

In Kitab al Jami' of Imaam ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani he records Imaam Maalik saying "Eemaan is speech and action, it increases and decreases."

Also when someone said to Imaam Maalik "should I say, '(I am) a believer and Allaah praised?' or 'if Allaah wills?' Maalik replied "Say, '(I am) a believer' and do not mix anything other than it with it." Imaam Sahnun said about Maaliks statement "do not mix anything other than it with it" - "Do not say 'If Allaah wills' nor 'There is no power nor strength but by Allaah' nor 'And Allaah be praised'." This could mean the samething what you have stated or interpreted in a different manner wa Allaaho 'Alim