How to respond to one who says: Whoever says that deeds are a condition for the perfection of faith is a Murji'i?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Khalid al-Anbari: Your Eminence, since deeds are a condition for the perfection of faith and not a condition for its validity, as the Mu'tazilah and the Khawarij claim, some people accuse the people of the Sunnah, or some Salafis, of being Murji'ah. This is because they believe that if we say deeds are a condition for the perfection of faith, it leads to the view that faith is mere speech without deeds. They say this is the statement of the Murji'ah. So, since you Salafis do not declare as disbelievers those who abandon deeds, including the five pillars, and those who judge by other than what Allah has revealed without denial or deeming it permissible, you are Murji'ah. What is your response to this false accusation? May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : First, what matters to us is not the recent terminologies, but following the truth wherever it is. Whether it is called the madhhab of the Khawarij or the Mu'tazilah, they say with us: "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Does agreeing with them on this good word mean we should deviate from it because others who deviate from the truth also say it? Obviously, the answer is no. Rather, as stated in some authentic hadiths, we revolve with the truth wherever it revolves. Those who accuse the people of the Sunnah, who say what we mentioned regarding the position of the Imams, of being Murji'ah—what is this "irja'" in their view? What is this "irja'"? Those who hold to irja' do not say that faith increases and decreases with righteous deeds. Therefore, there is a very clear difference between the people of truth and the Murji'ah. We know that the scholars of the Salaf mention that some of the sects of the Murji'ah, who say that faith does not increase or decrease, are not hesitant to say, "My faith is like the faith of Jibril." This is reported, because in their view, the reality of faith is not subject to increase or decrease. The doctrine of irja' contradicts our statement that faith increases and decreases, and as mentioned in the question, there is no need to repeat that its increase is through obedience and its decrease through disobedience. The deviation of those who hold to irja' has reached a point where they contradicted explicit texts in the Book and the Sunnah that indicate faith increases. Based on their claim that faith does not increase or decrease, they said that it is not permissible to make a conditional statement regarding faith. It is not permissible to say, "I am a believer, if Allah wills." And they derived a very serious ruling from this statement: declaring as disbelievers those who make a conditional statement regarding their faith. It was stated in the books of branches that it is not permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i because they make a conditional statement regarding their faith. This was issued by some of their scholars previously. Then someone came who was thought to be one of their reformers or moderates, and he issued a ruling permitting it. But the truth is, I wonder which is more dangerous: this one who issued a ruling permitting it with the following reasoning, or those who explicitly stated that it is not permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i because they doubt their faith? One who doubts her faith is not a Muslim, nor from the People of the Book, so it would not be permissible to marry her even if she were from the People of the Book. So this person, who may be thought to be one of their moderates, answered when asked—and he is known as the Mufti of the Two Weighty Groups and the author of the Tafsir—that it is permissible. The reasoning now is the point of caution: he treated them as the People of the Book. This is the answer of the Murji'ah. There is no doubt that those who accuse the people of truth, regarding what was explained earlier that faith increases and decreases, etc., are saying about the people of truth what is not in them. In my opinion, they know what they are saying and know that they are wrong in what they say. The difference, in my opinion, is very clear between the creed of the Salaf and the Murji'ah. There is a vast difference between the two groups. The injustice comes from these upstarts today who accuse the followers of the righteous Salaf of being Murji'ah. Yes.
The Shaykh : First, what matters to us is not the recent terminologies, but following the truth wherever it is. Whether it is called the madhhab of the Khawarij or the Mu'tazilah, they say with us: "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Does agreeing with them on this good word mean we should deviate from it because others who deviate from the truth also say it? Obviously, the answer is no. Rather, as stated in some authentic hadiths, we revolve with the truth wherever it revolves. Those who accuse the people of the Sunnah, who say what we mentioned regarding the position of the Imams, of being Murji'ah—what is this "irja'" in their view? What is this "irja'"? Those who hold to irja' do not say that faith increases and decreases with righteous deeds. Therefore, there is a very clear difference between the people of truth and the Murji'ah. We know that the scholars of the Salaf mention that some of the sects of the Murji'ah, who say that faith does not increase or decrease, are not hesitant to say, "My faith is like the faith of Jibril." This is reported, because in their view, the reality of faith is not subject to increase or decrease. The doctrine of irja' contradicts our statement that faith increases and decreases, and as mentioned in the question, there is no need to repeat that its increase is through obedience and its decrease through disobedience. The deviation of those who hold to irja' has reached a point where they contradicted explicit texts in the Book and the Sunnah that indicate faith increases. Based on their claim that faith does not increase or decrease, they said that it is not permissible to make a conditional statement regarding faith. It is not permissible to say, "I am a believer, if Allah wills." And they derived a very serious ruling from this statement: declaring as disbelievers those who make a conditional statement regarding their faith. It was stated in the books of branches that it is not permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i because they make a conditional statement regarding their faith. This was issued by some of their scholars previously. Then someone came who was thought to be one of their reformers or moderates, and he issued a ruling permitting it. But the truth is, I wonder which is more dangerous: this one who issued a ruling permitting it with the following reasoning, or those who explicitly stated that it is not permissible for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i because they doubt their faith? One who doubts her faith is not a Muslim, nor from the People of the Book, so it would not be permissible to marry her even if she were from the People of the Book. So this person, who may be thought to be one of their moderates, answered when asked—and he is known as the Mufti of the Two Weighty Groups and the author of the Tafsir—that it is permissible. The reasoning now is the point of caution: he treated them as the People of the Book. This is the answer of the Murji'ah. There is no doubt that those who accuse the people of truth, regarding what was explained earlier that faith increases and decreases, etc., are saying about the people of truth what is not in them. In my opinion, they know what they are saying and know that they are wrong in what they say. The difference, in my opinion, is very clear between the creed of the Salaf and the Murji'ah. There is a vast difference between the two groups. The injustice comes from these upstarts today who accuse the followers of the righteous Salaf of being Murji'ah. Yes.