What is the intended meaning of 'aqidah according to the terminology of the scholars?

The Shaykh : I say: Indeed, praise is to Allah; we praise Him, seek His help, and seek His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our own souls and the badness of our deeds. Whoever Allah guides, no one can mislead, and whoever He misleads, no one can guide. And I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. O you who believe, fear Allah as He should be feared, and do not die except while you are Muslims. O mankind, fear your Lord who created you from one soul and created from it its mate, and scattered from them many men and women. And fear Allah through whom you ask one another, and through the ties of kinship. Indeed, Allah is ever a Witness over you...
The intended meaning of 'aqidah according to the terminology of the scholars is every report that comes from Allah or His Messenger that contains a report about the unseen (ghayb) that is not associated with a practical legal ruling in the Shari'ah. It is every report that comes from Allah or His Messenger that contains a report about something hidden from our minds, in our capacity as humans who do not know the unseen, and which is not accompanied by a practical legal ruling. However, if the report referred to is from the Book or the Sunnah, it is a practical ruling, and this is not described by them under the category of 'aqidah; rather, they classify it under the category of legal rulings. This is the terminology. The one who said that... the point now is to mention that terminology in the Islamic sciences is permissible, as the purpose is to facilitate... and understanding for people. However, it should be kept in mind that this must not lead to contradicting the Shari'ah. For example, from contemporary examples, it is permissible to name meanings with new names, but on the condition that it does not... [distort] legal realities. If this condition is not met, then that naming is not valid. For example, it is not permissible to name what Allah the Mighty and Majestic has forbidden, such as entertainments and musical instruments, as "fine arts." Why? Because this naming softens and conceals these sins and misleads people into thinking there is nothing wrong with them and that they are among the fine arts. But if we apply this name to drawings and bright, shining, beautiful engravings that do not contain images of animals forbidden in Islam, then there is no harm in this naming. This is an example of what you see in the present age. There are many examples of this, such as naming the forbidden riba (usury or interest) as "profit." What is the profit in it? Is it permissible for a person to deal in riba? We must not respond to this naming and this terminology. Not because it is a new invention, for every people... but because it is a terminology that leads to contradicting the Shari'ah.
The Shari'ah describes one who deals in riba as one who wages war against Allah and His Messenger, yet they call this "profit." All of this is from Satan's smoothing of things for the children of Adam to divert them from the commands of Allah and cause them to fall into the prohibitions of Allah. So I say there is no harm in that terminological distinction: naming a report as 'aqidah if it contains a report about the unseen and no legal ruling, and naming the other report as a legal ruling if it contains a legal ruling, because it is a legal ruling and not 'aqidah. This terminology is permissible, but on the condition! That it does not lead to contradicting the Shari'ah. And the contradiction has been realized... Every legal ruling that is not accompanied by 'aqidah has no value, because any ruling, whether it includes, for example, fard (obligatory) or wajib (obligatory)—the meaning is the same—if you perform this ruling with the intention and belief that it is fard, this ruling does not benefit you. And so it is with all the rulings or the remaining five rulings. If you perform a worship that is not obligatory, such as a confirmed sunnah or a recommended act, and you do it with the belief that it is fard, you have failed and it is not accepted, because you have contradicted Islamic 'aqidah in this legal ruling. This is sufficient for now in the path of... those that clearly show you that every legal ruling is accompanied by 'aqidah, but not vice versa; not every 'aqidah is accompanied by a legal ruling and action. For example, we believe in the emergence of the Dajjal (the false messiah) at the end of time. We believe in the existence of 'Isa (peace be upon him) and his killing of the Dajjal. We believe in the emergence of the Mahdi, Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah, at the end of time. We believe in the punishment of the grave, etc. All these are established 'aqidahs from the Book and the Sunnah. These are all mere 'aqidah not accompanied by action. The scholars have agreed to distinguish between this type of 'aqidah and that type of 'aqidah by saying these are 'aqidahs and these are rulings. But if... the distinction is a transient, foreign philosophy introduced into Islam, then it is not permissible for us to adopt this terminology. Rather, we say all of these are legal rulings. The reality is that this ruling is not accompanied by action, and that ruling is accompanied by action. Whatever it is... this is a ruling from Allah that you believe in such and such, and this is a ruling from Allah that you believe in such and such. But this latter type is accompanied by performing a specific type of action. This distinction, as I said, is a terminology, and there is no harm in using this terminology on the previous condition. I say "terminology" because the righteous Salaf did not know this at all. They did not know the distinction between a report containing mere unseen matters and a report containing a practical ruling. It is necessary to believe in its ruling. If we stop at this terminology and do not go beyond it to contradict other legal rulings, then there is no harm. But the reality is that we have been entangled by this terminology and have brought about a false 'aqidah that contradicts the Islamic Shari'ah. This 'aqidah is not known to the righteous Salaf, nor to the four Imams to whom we belong by following them in their madhahib (schools of jurisprudence), whether it is a creedal madhhab by this terminology or a ruling-based branch madhhab. I want to remind you of what Muslims are afflicted with today by an old, common opinion that some people adopted and spread among people, which became a cause of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) and a cause of calamity that many people suffered from due to their ignorance of the Sunnah first, and more importantly, due to their ignorance of what our righteous Salaf were upon: their acceptance of the authentic reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in their entirety, without a philosophy of 'aqidah and ruling. This was the position of the righteous Salaf regarding the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): to accept them in their entirety, whether they were 'aqidah by the previous terminology mentioned or a legal ruling. They did not distinguish between this and that. Rather, their position toward every hadith... with two reports, is to submit in submission. Because Allah Blessed and Exalted is He, when He said at the beginning of this verse:
So when you find in the Book of Allah or in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) this distinction that some Islamic sects were afflicted with in the past and some Muslim youth are afflicted with now, do you find this distinction in the Book of Allah or in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah? Or do you find there general, absolute texts like ? This is in terms of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) being the source of the report, the primary source. Then, do you find there in the Book or in the Sunnah a distinction such that the arrival of a report to the time of the Messenger requires that it be taken in rulings even if the transmitter of the report from the Messenger (peace be upon him) is a single person, whereas in 'aqidah, by the previous terminology, it is not taken unless they are a group, a group of mutawatir (mass-transmitted) reports? Do you find anything of this in the Book and the Sunnah? As for us, we have not found it and will not find it. It is impossible to find such a distinction between ahad (a report with a limited chain) hadith and 'aqidah, and the narrator himself, the same narrator who is trustworthy. This narrator, if he narrates a report in the pillars, is relied upon, but if he narrates a report in 'aqidah that has no ruling, he is not relied upon. We may not find this distinction and will not find it, but we find the opposite. This is stronger for us. We find texts from the Book and the Sunnah that also come as important texts, as well as general texts, regarding the Messenger (peace be upon him) as the primary source. There is no difference, whether a report comes from Allah containing unseen matters that we must submit to in submission, or a report containing a ruling that we must submit to in submission. The general texts indicate this and that there is no difference. Likewise, the texts came as general regarding the intermediary who transmits the report from the Messenger (peace be upon him). There is no difference either whether this intermediary is a Companion or after the Companions. For example, something of these general reports is the famous verse:
Why the wording?
So that they may gain understanding of the religion. What is gaining understanding of the religion? You will also find here another term; we say there is no harm with it, provided it does not also conflict with the texts of the Shari'ah. What is the term? The term for fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is understanding the rulings of the Shari'ah: haram (forbidden), halal (lawful), fard (obligatory), wajib (obligatory), mustahabb (recommended), mandub (recommended), mubah (permissible), and so on. But this, in the Shari'ah sense, is broader. "So that they may gain understanding of the religion" means so that they learn the religion and understand it well. The religion in its general concept includes creed and rulings. He says in this verse: A group, a community, a tribe, a faction, one or more. Linguistically, Allah the Exalted encourages the Muslims, directly in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and then the entire Muslim community following them. A faction among them encourages them to set out, to depart, to go out and travel to the center, to the person who teaches people their religion and gives them understanding of it.
The point here in the argument from the verse is the word "faction" (ta'ifah). This faction includes the individual and more than that. He says in the completion of the verse: So that they may warn their people, conveying to them what you have learned of understanding in the religion. If we know that fiqh in its Shari'ah sense is broader than in its terminological sense, first, and we know that "faction" means one or more, then it becomes clear to you that the verse is evidence against that distinction, that modern distinction. Because this faction, whether one, two, three, or more, their duty by the text of this verse is to receive fiqh from the one who has fiqh, and they are directly, in this hadith, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). This is their first duty. Then their other duty is to return to their people to warn them, give them good news, teach them, and give them understanding. So, does the proof hold with a single report in fiqh of the religion, without making that second distinction? The answer is that the verse is explicit because it does not distinguish. The duty of gaining understanding of the religion includes creed and rulings. Indeed, we say it includes creed before rulings, because creed is the foundation of rulings, as we explained to you just now. Whether according to our understanding or the understanding of others in their terminology, creed is more important to them than rulings are to us. This is because if rulings are stripped of creed, they have no value whatsoever. So, according to their terminology, conveying creed is more obligatory for this faction than conveying only the rulings of the Shari'ah. As for us, we make no distinction. So they must convey everything they have gained understanding of in the religion, whether it is creed or a ruling of the Shari'ah, which at the same time, as we explained, includes creed. As for the Sunnah, likewise, we find hadiths coming in absolute terms. For example, his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "Convey from me even if it is a single verse." Here, attention must be drawn to the fact that this is an encouragement to transmit a statement from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), whether he told them "this is a verse from the Qur'an" or did not tell them that. So this statement is from the speech of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is, practically speaking in the Islamic Shari'ah, like the Qur'an. We do not distinguish between Allah and His Messenger. So here is a general text: we do not distinguish between a statement concerning creed or a statement concerning the rulings of the Shari'ah. Also from this is a famous hadith: "May Allah beautify a man who hears my statement and then transmits it, conveying it as he heard it. For perhaps a carrier of fiqh is to a man of fiqh, and perhaps a carrier of fiqh is to one who is more learned in fiqh than he." Here too, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) called for safety for the one who hears the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and then transmits it to another, whether that person is in his rank and contemporary in knowledge, or is below him in rank and knowledge.
So the point is that the texts of the Book and the Sunnah are all of this pattern; they do not come with a distinction in the encouragement and the obligation to seek knowledge between hadiths concerning creed or hadiths concerning the rulings of the Shari'ah. So where did this distinction come from? It came from philosophy. It came from 'ilm al-kalam (speculative theology), from which that term resulted: that hadiths are taken from for rulings, even if they are ahad (single-narrator), but not for creed. It came from the philosophy that creed must be based on certainty. And opposite this is another philosophy that ahad hadiths do not provide certainty. This is not the speech of the early Muslim scholars. This is the speech of some Muslim philosophers. Some of them said something worse than that, saying that the texts, Shari'ah, Book, and Sunnah, are speculative (zanni) and do not provide absolute certainty. This is the agreement of al-Razi and others. And what provides certainty is only 'ilm al-kalam, meaning the knowledge that people brought from their independent reasoning and opinions. From it comes certainty. As for the Qur'an, which is a healing for what is in the breasts... and contains clear proofs of guidance and the Criterion, there is no proof in the Qur'an, and there is no certain proof in the Qur'an; rather, they are speculative matters. This is what some Islamic philosophers or scholars of kalam say. They mix in this speech the Qur'an and the Sunnah together. They do not distinguish between the Qur'an and the Sunnah, nor in the Sunnah between what is mutawatir (mass-transmitted) and what is not. All that knowledge is not certain. Worse than these are those who restricted this speech to ahad hadiths, saying that ahad hadiths do not provide certainty, and creed must be built on certainty. We discuss this claim from two aspects or more. We say to them first: your statement that ahad hadiths do not provide certainty has no evidence for it, except also... they have no evidence from the Book and the Sunnah at all. So ahad hadiths do not provide certainty, but rather they are speculation. If, from ahad hadiths in the terminology of hadith scholars, which is narrated by two or three people, the narration is transmitted or the chain is transmitted like this, meaning if we assume a hadith narrated by three of the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) — Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman, or others from the Companions — and then this hadith was narrated from these three by three of the trustworthy Tabi'un (successors), like Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, 'Alqamah, and others...
These three from the trustworthy generation of the followers of the Tabi'un. Who says that this hadith does not provide certainty, and what is the evidence for that? It is an ahad hadith, but the Companions... there is no doubt in our mind about their truthfulness first, and there is no doubt in our mind about their precision and memorization second. Then we move to the next generation, the Tabi'un, and then... all of them are described as trustworthy and preservers. Who says that if these people agree to narrate a hadith without collusion among them, but merely by chance encounter, when so-and-so the Companion says "I heard the Messenger," and another Companion says "I also heard the Messenger," and this Companion says "I heard the Messenger," and then a follower from here and a follower from here, and so on, this hadith, in the opinion of specialists in hadith, provides certainty. Because it is usually impossible for these three, and their number is not the number of presence, and yet it is impossible for them to collude in lying.
In fact, there is a hadith that is *ahad* in the linguistic sense, meaning it was narrated by only one individual. The example mentioned earlier is an *ahad* hadith in the technical sense, whereas linguistically it may have been narrated by three people. Now we come to a hadith narrated by a single Companion whose chain of transmission is authentic, but it is accompanied by a corroborating factor: the entire Ummah accepted this hadith. First, no one among them criticized it, and second, no one among them turned away from it or refused to act upon it. Rather, everyone accepted it. Those who did not act upon it said, "We have something stronger than it," not that it was invalid. They said, "We have something stronger in terms of religious obligation from the perspective of usul al-fiqh." So, although the Ummah did not unanimously agree to act upon this hadith, the Ummah nonetheless accepted it, even those who did not act upon it. For example, the Hanafis do not act upon the hadith that "there is no prayer for one who does not recite Surat al-Fatihah," but they do not deny its authenticity. They say, "This is an *ahad* hadith, and an *ahad* hadith, when it contradicts the apparent meaning of the Qur'an, is not acted upon according to their view." They did not say, "This hadith is not authentic." So this is a hadith that the Ummah accepted, even though they differed in acting upon it. This type of hadith is a strange concept that scholars of hadith state is... Thus, there is no evidence in the Book or the Sunnah that a person is excused from accepting this authentic hadith simply because it is *ahad*. This, in addition to the general evidence mentioned earlier, also contradicts the guidance of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), as well as the practice of the Salaf of the Ummah. As for his guidance (may Allah's prayers and blessings be upon him), we know with certainty that he sent individuals to kings, rulers, or tribes. This is what was done regarding 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, and Mu'awiyah ibn Jabal when he sent them to Yemen, and he sent other individuals, such as Yahya, for example, to the King of the Romans, and so on. All of these are practical proofs that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) applied this correct concept: there is absolutely no difference between a hadith of 'aqidah and an *ahad* hadith. We have hadiths regarding rulings. When the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sent those messengers, we necessarily know that he sent them to peoples to teach them the religion and to convey to them what they had learned from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So we know with certainty that Mu'awiyah ibn Jabal conveyed the 'aqidah to them. To put it more clearly, he conveyed the hadiths he had heard from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), which fall into the two categories mentioned earlier: some contain pure 'aqidah, and some contain rulings along with 'aqidah. Did the argument (hujjah) become established by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sending these individuals to teach those peoples their religion? We say with certainty that the argument was established against them, and it is impossible for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to send an individual who is not qualified to establish the argument against those peoples who need to be convinced by the words of the intermediary between them and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). So Mu'adh, Abu Musa, and others among the Companions conveyed to those people the Islam they understood from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and received from him, and the argument was established thereby, because it is impossible for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to send someone who cannot establish the argument, just as it would be said that when Yahya went to Heraclius, the argument was not established by him because he was an individual, and the report of an individual does not establish the argument except in legal rulings, while operating on the premise that Mu'adh and his like conveyed the Shari'ah in its entirety, both 'aqidah and legal rulings.
Therefore, in addition to those general texts, it is not permissible for a Muslim to differentiate between one hadith and another, or to permit himself to reject a hadith merely because it contains a matter of the unseen (ghayb), such as the hadith regarding the punishment of the grave. For example, the statement of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that al-Bukhari and Muslim included in their Sahihs: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) passed by two graves and said, "Indeed, they are being punished, and they are not being punished for a great matter. As for one of them, he used to go about spreading backbiting, and as for the other, he did not clean himself from urine," until the end of the hadith. The point here is that he said, "Indeed, they are being punished," and they are from this Ummah of those who are obligated to act, they are not disbelievers, but their sin was that one of them used to go about spreading backbiting, and the other did not guard against the spray of urine, so this impurity would hit his body and his garment, and each of them was punished for that in the grave. This is a matter of the unseen. Do we believe in the punishment of the grave or not?
The aforementioned philosophy says no, because this is an *ahad* hadith. But when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) specified this in the hadith, and Ibn 'Abbas heard it, what was his stance? He believed in it, without any doubt or hesitation. When Ibn 'Abbas narrated it to the Tabi'i, what was the Tabi'i's stance toward it? It was the same stance Ibn 'Abbas had toward his Prophet. And so the practice of acting upon the hadith continued among them in a chain, without the philosophy of differentiating between 'aqidah and rulings. Therefore, we constantly and eternally call for us to understand our Shari'ah according to the way of the righteous Salaf. Among the methods and justice of the righteous Salaf is that they accepted the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), believed in it, and affirmed it, whether it was in rulings or in 'aqidah. Whoever wishes to ask a question about this research, whether it is a question for clarification or a question of difficulty, because for me there is no difference between one 'aqidah and another, whether it is understood by some or unknown to others. The others must learn, and those who have already learned must convey it. We believe that the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who attended his scholarly gatherings were not all at the same level of religious culture. We know that Abu Bakr and his like among the great Companions would hear the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) repeatedly and over and over, because they would narrate to peoples things they had not heard before. So the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would be a repetition for some people and a beginning for others. The former must bear this repetition, and it should not go to waste for them, because repetition reinforces concepts in the minds. I am certain that those who have heard this research once or twice will not be able to turn away from it if they are tested with people from the scholars of Kalam who were influenced by this philosophy, which is of no benefit to a person. That is, they must be patient if they hear the repetition of such matters, because it is related to 'aqidah, and 'aqidah requires verification, knowing its evidence, and debating those who speak about it more than rulings do, according to those people who differentiate between them. But for us, the entire Shari'ah is 'aqidah, and if it is not carried and accepted as 'aqidah, there is no benefit in these rulings that are devoid of 'aqidah. This is what the Muslim says. Therefore, I say, whoever has a question, please go ahead.