Shaykh Rabee' on those Who Accuse al-Albaanee of Irjaa Due to the Phrase 'Actions are a Condition of Perfection in Eemaan' and a Refutation of Musa Millington and Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi
Filed under: General
Tuesday, September 17 2013 - by Abu.Iyaad
Key topics: Al-Albani Al-Albaanee Irjaa
Shaykh Rabee, the Haddaadiyyah and the Accusation of al-Irjaa'
In a lecture titled, (كلمة في التوحيد وتعليق على بعض أعمال الحدادية الجديدة), "A Word Regarding Tawhid and a Commentary on Some of the Actions of the Haddaadiyyah" (21/12/1425H) - see transcript here - Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee said:
"... they accused al-Albaani of Irjaa' because this expression occurred from him, may Allaah pardon him, the likes of this expression occurred from the Imaams (of the past) and no one judged them with Irjaa'. Mis'ar (bin Kidaam) did not make exception (istithnaa) in eemaan... and it was said to Imaam Ahmad, "Is he a Murji'?" and he said, "No." And we do not know Mis'ar (rahimahullah) to make war against Irjaa' as Ahl al-Sunnah (meaning al-Albaanee) wage war (against it), those whom you (Haddaadiyyah) accuse of Irjaa', out of oppression and wrongdoing. For if Imaam Ahmad was asked today about the expression of al-Albaanee [actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan] he would have said, "He is not a Murji'" ... and I, by Allaah, I rejected this expression from others, even before al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) said it, this expression, "Action is a condition of perfection in eemaan" and Ibn Baz (rahimahullaah) shares with him somewhat, they asked him about action, is it a condition of perfection (kamaal) or of correctness (validity)? He said, "From it is that which is a condition of validity, such as the prayer..." and in my presence he said, "and the actions of the heart..." and in the presence of others besides me he said, "...From the actions are those that are a condition of validity, such as the prayer and whatever is besides it, then it is a condition of perfection..." So he shared with al-Albaanee (in this matter) by a great deal - in relation to all of Islam, except the prayer, in relation to all actions of eemaan except the prayer and (yet these people, the Haddaadiyyah), they say, "al-Albaanee is Murji'..."
And today, the Haddaadiyyah, they are from the offshoots (secretions) of the Ikhwaan and the Qutbiyyah, they carry the flag of war against Ahl al-Sunnah and they render them Murji'ah and Hizbiyyeen ... and (only) they are Ahl al-Sunnah as they claim...
... and many of the Scholars say (الإيمان أصل والعمل كمال) "(Inward) eemaan is the foundation and action is perfection" and (والعمل فرع), "... and action is a branch," they say this speech, shall we say "They are Murji'ah"?! I seek refuge in Allaah from this.
The point of evidence here is that this drivel (they speak) now with "Irjaa', Irjaa'" and "So and so is a Murji'", these people carry the spirit of the Khawaarij, and they share with them to a great extent, they share with them in malice towards Ahl al-Sunnah, and lying and fabricating against them.
Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen and others, the speech of al-Albaanee reached them in this matter, and they exonerated him from Irjaa', they did not say "Murji'", just as (Imaam) Ahmad exonerated Mis'ar and others, I do not recall their names now , they would say to him (Imaam Ahmad), "Is so and so a Murji'" and he would say "No," but others would accuse him (Mis'ar) of al-Irjaa'. What type of zeal is this? It is enmity and malice that pushed him (meaning one from the Haddaadiyyah) to this, not jealousy for Ahl al-Sunnah, by Allaah, they are liars, by Allaah, this is not out of jealousy for Ahl al-Sunnah, but it is due to malice for Ahl al-Sunnah and to seek revenge from their disputant, for the person who is jealous for the Sunnah does not do this and by Allaah we are more jealous for the Sunnah and more severe in retribution from Ahl al-Bid'ah, but these people, they have little trace in this regard (towards Ahl al-Bid'ah)...
Those Haddaadites, you come to them now, by Allaah, with texts, narrations in order to satisfy them in matters that they raised (invented) against Ahl al-Sunnah, but they reject them (those texts), and they (Ahl al-Sunnah) bring them the speech of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyyim and so and so and so and so from the Imaams, by Allaah, they reject it! I believe that the first Haddaadites did not reach this level, so beware of them and warn from them for if they do not make repentance to Allaah and take stock of their own souls, then they are heading towards crashing into the pit (haawiyah), that which the people of innovations before them fell into, and their destination is the destination of those who preceded them, because Allaah promised aid for the people of truth, for He, the Truth, the Sublime, said, "And our hosts, they verily will be the victors" (37:173).
So no matter how much they boast to the people that they are "Atharis" and "people of truth", then they are not people of truth, rather they are upon falsehood (baatil) and they are not "Atharis" rather they are (أشريين) (insolent ones) and (وبطريين) (arrogant ones) ... they are not from the athar and its people and nor from the (good) manners and its people, or from their manhaj and their fear (of Allah) in anything.
Warn against them whilst you unite between yourselves, and bring about mutual brotherhood and deal with each other with good manners and Islamic etiquette and show mercy to one another and show mutual affection for one another. For indeed the people of innovations and misguidance and numerous factions of (different) creeds they cluster together against Ahl al-Sunnah, they wage war against them and they have made the Haddaadiyyah to be the head of the spear in slaughtering Ahl al-Sunnah, but Allaah will demolish their spears as He demolished them beforehand, He will demolish them now and after, if Allaah wills.
 Note: The others being alluded to here by Shaykh Rabee, who are similar to Mis'ar bin Kidaam appear to be: Ibrahim al-Taymee, Abdur-Rahman al-Sullamee, Awn bin Abd Allaah and others. And the issue was that they did not make exception in eemaan (meaning to say "I am a believer, if Allaah wills") and this position was the same as what the Murji'ah were saying, who also abandoned making the exception. However, in affirming faith resolutely (without the exception), they (those Imaams from the Salaf) were intending the asl (foundation) of eemaan and not the perfection of eemaan, so they did not see the necessity of making the exception. However, some people accused them of irjaa' on account of this - because of the apparent agreement with the saying of the Murji'ah. Yet they were free and innocent from it. This is why Imaam Ahmad exonerated Mis'ar from this, because he knew and understood his saying. And the same here, what Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Ibn Baaz meant in their use of the phrase "actions are condition in eemaan" (for its perfection), they were speaking here from the angle of major sins (leaving an obligation) not being kufr, unlike what the Mu'tazilah and the Khawaarij say. However, the expression is unrestricted, ambiguous because those who actually do expel actions from the reality (haqeeqah) or meaning (musammaa) of eemaan (the Maturidi Hanafis and others), they also use this statement "actions are a condition of perfection" but intend something else by it, based upon their foundation that actions are not from eemaan. The Murji'ah of old withheld from making exception (istithnaa) in eemaan because they did not believe actions to be from eemaan, hence, they could not make the exception (istithnaa), otherwise it necessitated doubt for them. This view is unlike that of those Scholars from the Salaf who were actually intending the asl (foundation) of eemaan when they withheld from making the exception (saying "inshaa'Allaah") whilst affirming that actions are from eemaan, because a person cannot be in doubt about the foundation of his faith. This is the point being made by Shaykh Rabee' here, referring to what happened in the past on the issue of al-istithnaa where some were accused of Irjaa' when they were free of it, and this is similar to what the Haddaadiyyah have done on this issue of al-Albaanee and the statement "actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan." The contemporary Haddaadiyyah, they play upon these types of issues in order to accuse Ahl al-Sunnah of Irjaa', and this is what we find from the followers of Yahyaa al-Hajooree and from them is Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi and the other oppressive ignoramus being Musa Millington from Trinidad.
For a detailed in-depth discussion of one of these such attempts by some of the contemporary Haddaadiyyah, refer to this thread here (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and al-Eemaan - Response to a Faajir Kadhdhaab)
Driving the Stake into the Ignorance, Deceptions and Pretences of Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi and Musa Millington
Some of these Haddaadiyyah attempted to use a Shaykh in Riyaadh, Shaykh Abdur-Rahman al-Barraak, in order to throw the accusation of Irjaa' in relation to this issue. They took some of the speech in question (twisted it) and put it to the Shaykh. However, when they released the audio, it was clear and apparent that they clipped the answer and hid a portion of it, as the answer stops very abruptly and the cut in the audio is apparent. These people not only have evil intentions, they are dumb too. The reason and intent behind that is perhaps made clear when we refer to a small treatise on eemaan by the same Shaykh where he discusses in detail the issue of "shart" (condition) as it relates to eemaan. In the treatise (جَوَابٌ فِي الإِيمَانِ وَنَوَاقِضِه), "An Answer Pertaining to Eemaan and its Nullifiers" Here we reproduce excerpts from the relevant section (download PDF file here) for benefit in this matter. If you have followed the detailed thread ( here) you should be familiar with the background to this episode - and what follows below exposes Musa Millington and Abu Fujoor for the liars and deceivers that they are, on top of their fame for being ignoramuses.
You will also realize that everything that I explained 18 months ago in that long thread is exactly the same as what this Shaykh is saying.
The Shaykh said:
Notification: It is not correct to apply unrestrictedly the saying, meaning that we apply unrestrictedly, saying, "Action is a condition for the validity (sihhah) or eemaan." This speech is unrestricted speech (kalaam mutlaq), it does not contain any tafseel (detail). Or that we say, "Action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan." The opposite of generalization (itlaaq) is what? Detail (tafseel). In detail, the precise meaning is afforded. The unrestricted saying (is) "Action is a condition for the validity of eemaan or a condition for perfection", rather this requires detail (tafseel).
This is the same as what I explained (here) that this expression is unrestricted, mujmal (general) requiring tafseel. Unfortunately, Musa Millington, in his compound ignorance, rushed to treat this saying (of a generalization whose intent is to be investigated) to be the same as the false principle of Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee of "al-mujmal wal-mufassal." Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribee's intent behind that principle was to defend statements that are outright baatil (such as statements of wahdat ul-wujood, revilement of the companions and so on) and not mere ambiguous, generalized statements. Shaykh Rabee', in his refutation of al-Ma'ribee, made this distinction between the two, and said that as for speech that is mujmal (general), then it must be accompanied with tafseel, and the person making it must clarify the intent and that this has nothing to do with statements of outright baatil (falsehood) coming from al-Ma'ribee and from Sayyid Qutb which al-Ma'ribee was trying to defend using this principle, statements such as the Companions are "ghuthaa'iyyah" (scum) and explicit statements of wahdat ul-wujood from Sayyid Qutb and explicit statements of takfeer of the whole Ummah coming from Muhammad al-Maghrawi. So al-Ma'ribi's intent was to defend these statements by claiming they are "general" when that is utter complete falsehood. They are in fact futile sayings in and of themselves. So Musa Millington in his compound ignorance tried to make the two matters the same and accuse me of speaking with the principle of al-Ma'ribee.
The Shaykh continues:
...rather this requires detail (tafseel). Because the word "action" (al-amal) comprises the action of the heart and the action of the limbs, and it comprises fi'l (performing an action) and tark (abandoning an action). This is because from what enters into eemaan are the abandonments, as has preceded that abandonment that is desired (in the Sharee'ah), in the view of the usooliyyeen (scholars who extract and lay down principles), it is considered an action. The labels of "amal" and "fi'l" (action), then abandonment (of an action) also enters into them. And [further], it (the label of amal) comprises the obligations (waajibaat) which are the five foundations (pillars) of Islaam and also (comprises) what is less than them. Meaning the obligations, the greatest of which are the five foundations of Islaam and what is less than them from the obligations such as jihaad, commanding good and prohibiting evil, and also the collective obligations. And it (the label of amal) also comprises abandonment of shirk and kufr and what is less than them of actions. Yes, it comprises that, entering into amal (action) is abandonment of shirk and kufr and what is less than them of sins, all of this is from amal (action), abandoning zinaa, abandoning drinking of intoxicants, abandoning usury, until even the minor sins, abandoning them is from eemaan, abandoning the minor sins.
The Shaykh speaks of the necessity of tafseel, the first ambiguity is in relation to the word "action" (amal) itself, because it comprises so many matters and when it is used by a Scholar, then he may not intend to include all of these matters into the word "action" (amal) when he makes the phrase "actions are a condition..." - so here we find that this ambiguous phrase is used, then we have to be clear about the intent of the person using it, just like when Mis'ar bin Kidaam, Ibraaheem al-Taymee and others, when they did not make al-istithnaa (exception) in eemaan, then their intent was other than the intent of the actual Murji'ah, despite outwardly their speech being the same. And this has nothing to do with al-Ma'ribee's false principle - since we are dealing with generalizations that need clarification. Thus, when the word "amal" (action) can include fi'l (doing an action), tark (leaving an action) and fi'l can include what is a rukn (pillar) or what is a waajib (obligation) or what is mustahabb (reccommended) and when tark can include leaving an action that is shirk, or kufr, or major sin, or minor sin, then it has to be clear what exactly is a person speaking of when he uses the word amal (action), and Imaam al-Albaanee, he means the outward (obligatory and reccommended) righteous deeds and is not referring to the turook (abandonments) which relate to major shirk and major kufr. So this issue is similar in a way to the Ahl al-Kalaam and their use of ambiguous words such as jism, jawhar, 'arad and the likes, through which different meanings can be intended. And so investigating and clarifying the intent is necessary, and this has nothing to do with the corrupt principle of al-Ma'ribee. However alongside this, the terminology used is to be avoided because of its ambiguity, and it is blameworthy to use such terms, and best to stick to words used by the Salaf.
The Shaykh continues:
As for the pillars of Islaam after the two testimonials: Then as for the two testimonials, then affirmation (iqraar) of them outwardly and inwardly, they are a condition of validity (sihhah). There is no eemaan without that. [And aside from the two testimonials] Ahl al-Sunnah are not united upon anything from them (the remaining pillars), that any of them are a condition for the validity of eemaan, with the meaning that abandoning it is disbelief, rather, they differed regarding the disbelief of the one who abandoned anything from them, despite the greatest and most apparent of what they differed in was the five prayers. The pillars of Islaam, with respect to the one who abandoned anything of them, or (meaning) the one who abandoned any of the four pillars after the two testimonials.
What we are seeing here from the Shaykh's explanation is that the only matter agreed upon by all Scholars, a matter which if abandoned is disbelief and which is therefore "a condition for the validity of eemaan ", is the shahaadataan (two testimonials of faith). And as for the rest of the pillars, then there is no agreement about them, not even in the prayer - the difference regarding it as to whether abandoning it constitutes disbelief or not is well known. This explains and puts into context the saying of Shaykh al-Albanee, that all outward righteous actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan (because he considers abandoning prayer not to be disbelief) and also what is found in the speech of Shaykh Ibn Baaz that besides the prayer, all the rest of the righteous actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan, because he considers abandoning prayer to be disbelief. This same explanation has been given by Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen who also used the terms "condition of validity" and "condition of perfection" wherein he said, "When evidence shows a person leaves Islam by this action then it becomes a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan. And when evidence shows that he does not exit (Islaam) it becomes a condition of the perfection (kamaal) of eemaan. The topic has ended" - refer to the full article.
All of this slowly and gently puts the noose around the deception and games of people like Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi and Musa Millington, two ignoramuses, whose love of the Haddaadi innovator, Yahya al-Hajuri, has led them - just as Shaykh Rabee' described above - to such malice and envy that they attack Ahl al-Suunnah, out of oppression and injustice and accuse them of al-Irjaa' - and it is not due to defence and jealousy for the aqidah, but out of jealousy and defence of Yahya al-Haddaadi.
The Shaykh continues:
And as for all the other obligations after the five pillars of Islaam, then Ahl al-Sunnah do not differ that performing them is a condition for the perfection (kamaal) of the eemaan of a servant, and leaving them is disobedience (ma'siyah) which does not expel him from eemaan.
Alhamdulillaah this makes the affair crystal clear. And it shows the intent of those who use these terms "actions are a condition" whether for its validity (sihhah) or its perfection (kamaal). Their intent is to oppose the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah who expel Muslims from Islaam on account of the actions of disobedience. Al-Haafidh al-Hakamee in Ma'arij al-Qubool (2/31), "And the difference between this - meaning the saying of the Mu'tazilah - and between the saying of the Righteous Salaf is that the Salaf did not make all of the actions to be a condition for validity. Rather, they made many of them a condition for perfection, just as Umar bin Abd al-Aziz said regarding them, 'Whoever perfects them has perfected eemaan, and whoever does not perfect them has not perfected eemaan'." Yes, these terms might be unrestricted and ambiguous and are best avoided, but this is the tafseel (detail) that makes the desired intent clear. And sadly for Musa Millington, all of this has got nothing to do with al-Ma'ribi's corrupt principle of "al-mujmal wal-mufassal" which he wrongly thought was in play here. Musa Millington wasted his time writing a barrage of PDFs on this matter thinking that the sheer volume and rapid succession will hide his own ignorance and foolishness and make the accusations stick.
The Shaykh continues:
And it is desirable for it to be known that the intent here behind [the word] (الشَّرْط), "condition" is with its more general meaning, which is "that whose existence the reality (of a thing) depends upon irrespective of whether it is a pillar therein or external to it." So what has been said here that it (action) is a condition for eemaan, it is from eemaan, and this tafseel (detail), all of it is upon the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah. There is (the well-known) definition of (الشَّرْط) "condition" with the usooliyyeen, which is "that upon which the reality of a thing depends from what is external to it", for example: Notice the conditions of prayer. Purification (tahaarah) is a condition for the validity of the prayer, but purification, meaning purifying oneself (wudhoo), it is not from the prayer. For example, reason (aql) is a condition for the validity of worship, however it is not from the components of prayer, it is simply a description found in the one obligated (with worship). And intention (niyyah) is a condition, even though it preceds (acts of) worship. However, sometimes, the intent behind the (term) "condition" is that upon which the reality of something depends [without it being external to the thing itself], like what the Jurists rerfer to as "pillars." The pillar of the prayer is in reality a condition, because it depends upon it and the absence of the pillar necessitates the absence of the validity (correctness) of the worship. So this is the meaning of our saying that it is desirable for it to be known ... in that which we are (discussing) the (action) from eemaan about which we say it is a condition for the validity (sihhah) of eemaan or a condition for the perfection (kamaal) of eemaan, it is from eemaan itself, it is not a part that is outside of eemaan, or a matter that is outside of eemaan... for the pillars of prayer they are a condition for the validity of prayer absolutely, when a pillar is lost then the rak'ah (unit) of prayer is invalidated, or the prayer itself is invalidated...
Compare this with the statements of Musa Millington wherein he said, "If one says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan then in that case he is putting actions outside of Imaan" and also "To explain this more clearly we all know that Wuduu is one of the conditions of prayer. If there is no Wuduu there is no prayer. However, the Wuduu itself is not part of the prayer but rather a pre-requisite that must be established before the prayer is done hence outside of it. Likewise, the one who says that actions are a condition for the completeness of Imaan is like the one that says that actions are a pre-requisite for its completeness but not part of it." I addressed Musa Millington's ignorance in this regard and his lack of understanding in this issue and advised him not to speak in matters he does not understand. The reason is that when Musa Millington gave this explanation of the word "shart" then it meant he undermined everything that his partner (Abu Fujoor) wrote in the first place, and the very quotations brought by his partner in trying to stir up this issue, and hence, the entire purpose for which Abu Fujoor raised this issue in the first place became meaningless. These are some of my statements in the discussion from 18 months ago - and compare them with what Shaykh Rabee has said and also what you see in this tafseel from Shaykh al-Barraak. First, the following in this post:
... but the point here is just to illustrate that Musa Millington has erred when he tried to use the issue of the word "shart" (condition) - because he has not grasped the fact that the Scholars use these terms with a particular objective in mind, and that is to help differentiate the position of the Mu'tazilah from the position of Ahl al-Sunnah. If Musa was correct, it would mean that all of these Scholars who affirm that besides the prayer (whose abandonment they consider to invalidate eemaan) all of the other external actions (which are waajib and mustahabb) are shart kamaal (condition for perfection of eemaan), that they have expelled those actions from eemaan and therefore tended towards the Murji'ah, but this is not what is really going on. Unless you are familiar and well-grounded in this whole debate and understand the intent and purpose behind the terms and phrases used you will start speaking upon ignorance, without light and guidance and make mistakes and start accusing others of what they are free of, and this is what happened to the Haddaadiyyah and Takfiriyyah who accused Shaykh al-Albaani of Irjaa'. They strayed from moderation and balance, and did not pay attention to the words and clarifications of the Scholars, and upon this imputed to others what they are free of.
And I also said to Musa Millington in the same post :
It is really here that the Haddaadiyyah fell into Ghuluww and in their claim of trying to defend the aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah relating to eemaan, they went to excess, and did not do justice in the topic and began to make baseless accusations, because they, unlike the scholars, did not grasp the subtlety of the topic and nature and intent behind the usage of the terms and phrases, and then began to ascribe to the Scholars (like Shaykh al-Albani) that which they are totally free and innocent of which they never intended, from near or far.
And in the same post :
Likewise in our times, the Takfiriyyah and Haddaadiyyah have emerged and they compile, write and gather in the issue of eemaan, and their aim in reality is to use this as a stepping stone to attack the Scholars of the Sunnah and accuse them with Irjaa' for their own nefarious goals. They monopolize on the subtle nature of this subject and use the speech of some scholars (whose realities and applications they do not fathom) in order to build their accusations against others. It is my belief that this faajir kaddhaab, Abu Fujoor, is actually drinking from the mashrab of the Haddaadiyyah, grazing in their pastures, and using their stepping stones in order to attack the Salafi callers.
And in this post:
So my point is that if you are going to take issue with the word shart (condition) you have to be consistent and apply it not just to matters which are from kamaal (perfection), but also to matters which are from sihhah (correctness, validity). So if Musa Millington uses the example of wudoo to illustrate the word shart, then it means Musa has to be consistent and say that anyone who says that prayer is shart sihhah for eemaan is essentially saying that prayer is not from eemaan, but is outside of eemaan. There is absolutely no difference between the two. Again, Musa is too cowardly to admit this and is blatantly lying when he says his issue was not about the word shart. And this was the point I was trying to get across to Musa which he clearly has not grasped. That either be consistent in what you are saying and find fault with anyone who uses the word shart (even if it be in matters that constitute the sihhah of eemaan, such as the prayer)...
However, the stubborn ignoramus did not listen and proceeded to issue a barrage of PDFs in a blind frenzy. So the intent here is that some of the scholars (usooliyyoon) use the term (الشَّرْط), "condition" with the meaning of something that is external to a thing but the jurists (fuquhaa) use it to refer to something which can be part of a thing. And on the basis of this we see varying statements of scholars regarding the usage of the saying "actions are a condition in eemaan" whether for its validity or perfection, some of them have no problem in using it, and others disapprove of it, and one has to grasp all of these intricacies before speaking on the topic otherwise a person will fall into oppression and accuse a Scholar or other than him, that which he is free of, which is a point I made repeatedly in the lengthy discussion in the thread.
The Shaykh continues:
And this tafseel (detail), all of it proceeds upon the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. Hence, the one who spoke with the absence of disbelief of the one who abandoned the prayer or any of the other pillars, he is not a Murji' just like the one who spoke of his kufr (for abandoning the prayer) he is not a Haruri (Khariji)... because these (ones) and these (ones), whoever spoke from the Salaf of the disbelief of the one who abandoned prayer or spoke with its absence - all of them are agreed that eemaan is a term that comprises the four matters which have preceded, belief, the action of the heart, and the action of the limbs, all of them enter into the action (that is from) eemaan.
The first of those who used this issue of abandonment of prayer to slander the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah with al-Irjaa' was the extremist Qutbi, Safar al-Hawali (see here). The Haddaadiyyah then utilized this issue of eemaan and actions in a more general sense and started to accuse Shaykh al-Albani, Shaykh Ibn Baz (and also Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin) of al-Irjaa' because there is found in their speech something of this (the use of "actions being a condition in the perfection of eemaan," either all of them, or most of them) and also because they do not make takfir of the rulers who judge by other than what Allaah revealed. Then this accusation became a slogan and banner for the Haddaadiyyah, and it was inherited by the different levels of Haddaadiyyah until today we see some of the fanatical followers of Yahya al-Haddaadi use this matter out of treachery to the Imaams of Ahl al-Sunnah of our time and out of deception and oppression and out of jealousy for Yahya al-Haddaadi and malice towards Ahl al-Sunnah.
The Shaykh says in concluding the discussion:
And from all of this, the answer regarding the issue of action relating to eemaan becomes apparent, [the issue of whether] it is a condition for validity or condition for perfection, and the madhhab of the Murji'ah in this matter. And with this, I do not know anyone from the earlier Scholars who spoke with this, but it is found in the speech of some of the later ones, meaning this terminology, or this question, or this unrestricted (application of the term). Meaning, I do not not know whether the Imaams spoke (regarding it) and spoke with (this saying) or not? But they spoke about action being from eemaan and they rejected against those who said action is not from eemaan. And I do not recall anyone... but some of the explainers (of the books of hadeeth), I believe al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, it was cited to him from some of them, "Is the difference between the Murji'ah and Ahl al-Sunnah in this issue..." and the meaning of that is, the Murji'ah say action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan and Ahl al-Sunnah say action is a condition for the validity of eemaan, and the affair is not like this, with such an unrestricted (generalization). And this is why we said in what has preceded, it is not correct to make an unrestricted generalization that action is a condition for the validity of eemaan and nor that action is a condition for the perfection of eemaan, as has preceded in detail.
These terms are not found with the Salaf, but the first who appeared to use it is Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and he was intending to differentiate between the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah and the Mu'tazilah, and his saying was cited by Imaam al-Albani (rahimahullaah) to make the same point in his book Hukm Taarik al-Salaat, wherein he said, "...for all the righteous actions are a condition for the perfection with Ahl al-Sunnah, in opposition to the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah those who say that the major sinners will remain eternally in the fire, alongside the Khawarij making explicit takfeer of them (the sinners)." And he alluded to Fath al-Baaree (1/46) in the footnote, referring to Ibn Hajar's usage of this term to contrast the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah from that of the Mu'tazilah. However, this is an unrestricted phrase that requires tafseel as has preceded. However, the Haddaadiyyah accuse anyone who speaks with these terms without qualification as being someone who calls to Irjaa' when they are in fact free and innocent of it. Rather, the most that is said is that it is an unqualified generalization which requires tafseel. In his utter rank ignorance in this matter, Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi used this issue to throw the accusation of the extremist Irjaa' of the As'harites, those who do not consider actions to be from eemaan in the first place. This is a gross unjust slander. Despite being corrected, he has not recanted from this slander, which indicates that the issue was not raised for the sake of Allaah, or for the sake of the aqidah but for the sake of jealousy for Yahya al-Hajuri al-Haddadi.
Summary and Conclusion
We can finish with some other relevant quotes that can be found in the detailed discussion elsewhere:
The saying of Shaykh Muhammad Bazmul in Sharh Sifat al-Salah lil-Shaykh al-Albani:
And the reality is that these are general (i.e. ambiguous words), there must be clarification with respect to them, they are not accepted or rejected except after enquiring into the intent of the one who [expresses] them. If the one who said, "Actions are shart kamaal" intends that falling short in action is a cause of the decrease in eemaan, for it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience and can sometimes decrease until it ceases altogether when he abandons action alltogether whilst having the ability to do so and without anything preventing him, then this is the meaning of the saying of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah but the error is in the expression. And if he intended that eemaan can be established in its foundation (asl) without any action, and that action is not from the reality of eemaan, then this is the sayig of the Murji'ah.
And the saying of Shaykh Muhammad Aqeel in a short treatise of his (see here):
This is a summary of this issue (of the excuse of ignorance), and this issue has equivalent issues (that are like it) for example, "actions are a condition for perfection (kamaal) or a condition for validity (sihhah)", this (issue) is a sister-issue (to the issue of the excuse of ignorance). We do not say "shart kamaal" nor do we say "shart sihhah", we say "actions are from eemaan". However we do not show severity upon a Salafi who says, "shart kamaal" or "shart sihhah." For this one (in saying shart kamaal) has a salaf (a precedence) and that one (in saying shart sihhah) also has a salaf (a precedence). I say that this matter (of the excuse of ignorance) has other equivalent issues, because they are propagated in order to bring about separation between Ahl al-Sunnah, and by Allaah besides whom there is none worthy of worship besides Him, al-udhru bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance) and al-a'maal shart kamaal or shart sihhah (actions being a condition of the perfection or validity [of eemaan]) and what is like them from the issues, then verily they are propagated for no reason except to split the Salafis.
- The issue of "actions being a condition for the perfection of eemaan" (though an unqualified generalization that is best avoided) was used by the Takfiris and Khawarij to attack the Imaams of the Sunnah, at the head of them Imaam al-Albani. In history, the accusation of Irjaa' was also made against some of the Imaams of the Sunnah such as Mis'ar bin Kidaam and Ibraaheem al-Taymee because they apparently (outwardly) agreed with the Murji'ah in the issue of al-Istithnaa even though they intended something different, their intent was that exception is not made in the foundation of one's eemaan as that entails doubt (shakk) whilst affirming that actions are from eemaan. Alongside that, they were exonerated by Imaam Ahmad. Just like Imaam al-Albaanee was exonerated of Irjaa by Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, Shaykh Rabee' and others.
- The followers of Mahmood al-Haddaad, Faalih al-Harbee and Yahyaa al-Hajuri have all used this issue to throw the accusation of Irjaa' against Ahl al-Sunnah.
- Two such ignoramuses are Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi and Musa Millington. Their lies and deceptions are very clear from this article, and an in-depth exposition can be read in this thread. Another individual, Abdur-Raoof Muhammad (a Madeenah graduate with ties to Markaz Jam'iyyah Ahl al-Hadeeth (Green Lane Mosque) and Madeenah.Com recently used the writings of these two individuals to make the accusation of spreading the bid'ah of al-Irjaa'. This is because their hearts are the same, they have malice and hatred, which blinds them from justice.
- The final last-ditch attempt made by Abu Fujoor al-Kanadi in the episode in early 2012 was to try to get some speech out of this Shaykh, Shaykh al-Barraak. This was dealt with in this specific post. When they released the audio recording, it is very obvious that the recording had been cut short at a certain point. The reason is also obvious, and it is clear from what has preceded above. The Shaykh actually went on to give a tafseel (detail) to the matter which is pretty much exactly the same as the detailed response that was made against the claims of these two ignorant Haddaadis. If you have the time, read that thread and read the detail given by this Shaykh and you will see that clearly inshaa'Allaah.
- The clear difference can be seen between a) looking at what a person intends when generalized or ambiguous terms are used (e.g. "amal", "shart") - just like the terms "jism", "arad", "hawaadith" - and thus requesting and making tafseel (detail) so that the ambiguity is removed and b) claiming that outright false statements are "general" (mujmal) such as the saying, the Companions are "ghuthaa'iyyah (scum)", or the whole Ummah are disbelievers, hypocrites. These are the types of statements al-Ma'ribee was trying to defend and downplay with this principle of "al-mujmal wal-mufassal." How on earth are these ambiguous statements? This distinction was alluded by Shaykh Rabee' himself when he refuted al-Ma'ribee on this issue. Musa Millington is an ignoramus who does not understand these issues, and this is why when I explained exactly what is found in the speech of Shaykh al-Barraak, Shaykh Bazmul and Shaykh al-Subay'ee, he accused me of implementing the innovated principle of "al-mujmal wal-mufassal," indicating that compound ignorants delving into issues they do not grasp lead themselves astray and others too.
- These Haddaadis are fanatical followers of Yahya al-Hajuri. Despite all of the very grave and serious mistakes of Yahya al-Haddadi (see this series of articles), in matters of Tawhid, Aqidah, Manhaj, towards the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) towards the Sahaabah (radiallaahu anhum) and so on, these people do not accept the truth that is in the criticisms and refutations of Shaykh Rabee', Shaykh al-Fawzaan, Shaykh Ubayd, Shaykh Muhammad bin Haadee, Shaykh al-Wasabee and all the other Shaykhs in Yemen and Kuwait and elsewhere. Indicating that these are fanatics who assault Ahl al-Sunnah with lies and deception, due to their fanatical hate and bigotry for the sake of their leader, in the same way the Qutbiyyah assault Ahl al-Sunnah due to their fanaticism for Sayyid Qutb, and strangely enough, all of them use the same issue to express their hate!
- Shaykh Rabee's words at the beginning of this article are golden and they are eight years old, they apply perfectly to this third wave of Haddaadiyyah and it shows the insight of the Shaykh (hafidhahullaah)!
|Politics & Current Affairs|
|Ittibaa' & Taqleed|
|Walaa & Baraa'|
|Yasir Qadhi and Muhammad Hijab: Ikhwaniyyah in Theory and Practice|
|The Decades Old Slanders and Labels of the Khārijites, Quṭbists and Surūrists Recycled by Moḥammad Abushamma Against Salafis: Jāmiyyah, Madākhilah, Khāwārij, Murjiʾah|
|Bayan Talbis al-Muftari: Muhammad Munir and the Fahm (Understanding) of the Salaf|
|Muhammad Munir: When Pride and Arrogance Lead You to Reject Truth and Play Victimhood With Your Audience|
|An Invitation to Munir Muhammad to Repent and Warning From Arrogance and Playing Games with Allah's Deen|
|Munir Muhammad: The Dīn of the Jahmites and Ash'arites in Making Oppressive, Foolish Things Possible for Allah|
|Munir Muḥammad: From Watering Down Manhaj to Watering Down the Affair of Tawhid|
|Revilement of the Misguided Liar Khalid Abd al-Rahman al-Misri Upon Shaykh Rabi and Refutation of His Falsehood|
|Documents and Resources for Countering the Doubts of the Muṣaʿfiqah|
|The Misguided Ikhwani Shadeed Muhammad: Part 8 - The History of African American Personality Worship, Tawhid and Walaa and Baraa|
|Search This Site|
|Aqidah.Com - Islamic Belief|
|Dajjaal.Com - The Antichrist|
|Documents and Resources for Countering the Doubts of the Muṣaʿfiqah|
|The Rulings of the Scholars Upon 'Ustadh' Abdur-Rahman Hasan Who Lied Upon the Prophet|
|Al-Hasan al-Basree (d. 110H): Al-Hajjaaj bin Yusuf is the Punishment of Allaah|
|Taqi ud-Din an-Nabahani and Hizb ut-Tahrir: Between the Divine Methodology of Rectification and the Secular Materialistic Methodologies of Socio-Political Change Through Party Politics|
|Tahir Wyatt, Shadeed Muhammad and the 'Nation of Islam': Part 1|
|Refutation of Muhammad Munir Mufti's False Claims Regarding al-Jarh wal-Ta'deel and Warning from and Boycotting the Innovators|
|Ibn Abil-Izz al-Hanafi: Allaah Empowers Tyrannical, Oppressive Rulers Over the Subjects Due to Their Own Oppression and Corruption|
|Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzan Warns From Studying with the Likes of al-Hajuri Who Cause People to Doubt About Their Aqidah|
|The Crimes Of 'Ustadh' Abdul-Rahman Hassan Against The Usul of Salafiyyah: Part 1|
|Takfir and the Excuse of Ignorance: Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab|