Some people say: Tolerance toward some of the people of severe creedal innovations is an eclectic school of thought that has no connection to Islam. Is this statement correct?

The questioner : A questioner asks and says: Some people said that tolerance toward the people of severe creedal innovations is an eclectic school of thought that has no connection to Islam. So, is this man’s statement regarding "severe creedal innovations" a valid qualification, meaning that tolerance toward those who are not among the people of severe creedal innovations is permissible and part of Islam?

The Shaykh : He says?

The questioner : That tolerance toward the people of severe creedal innovations is an eclectic school of thought that has no connection to Islam?

The Shaykh : Meaning, no tolerance?

The questioner : Meaning, no tolerance?

The Shaykh : Meaning that it is obligatory not to be tolerant? There is no doubt that there is a difference in deviation between one creed and another, especially if we remember that the distinction between creed and practical legal rulings is merely a convention. This convention has had its negative effect on some Islamic sects in the past and Islamic groups in the present. They have exploited this distinction to reject the obligation of accepting dozens, if not hundreds, of authentic hadiths, claiming that these hadiths are not practical but rather creedal and intellectual, having no relation to legal rulings. It is clear that by this statement, I mean those who are attributed with this view from the past and those who adopt it among the contemporaries: that it is not obligatory to accept a single-narrator hadith in creed. This is undoubtedly a false statement that is not supported by any evidence from the Shari'ah, let alone from reason, if reason has any argument in legal rulings. Some Islamic parties today have adopted this and opposed accepting many authentic hadiths because they are not practical. My response to that is that any legal ruling is more important than any creedal ruling in terms of its connection to the command to worship Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). Every legal ruling includes a creed, but not vice versa; not every creed includes a practical legal ruling. The matter is, in my opinion, very clear and does not require much clarification. But it suffices for us to take one example from any of the acts of worship that they do not classify under creeds because they are practical. If a man prays, fasts, or does any of the known acts of worship in the Shari'ah, without the intention of drawing near to Allah and worshipping Him, his work is scattered dust. Therefore, the belief must accompany every act of worship, above all, that this act of worship is a law from Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). If it is not accompanied by worship, his work is scattered dust. If that is the case, we return to the fact that every creed must be adopted by the Muslim, whether it is accompanied by action or not. Some scholars distinguish between the two, saying "intellectual" and "practical." This is a subtle distinction as a convention, and there is no harm in it. But the practical cannot exist without preceding knowledge.

The questioner : Including it.

The Shaykh : Without a doubt, as we mentioned earlier. If that is the case, we return to explain the difference between one belief and another; they are not equal. For example, absolutely not, a man who believes that the Sunnah has no value and that only the Qur'an is valid. This is undoubtedly a belief that leads its holder to exit Islam. But it is not the case of a man who either believes that a specific hadith is not authentic or is fabricated, or that it did not enter his mind, which is the worst of the possibilities, so he denies it. Are these two equal? They are not equal. So both share in a creed, and according to what I quoted from the one I referred to, it is a severe and minor creed. This is a very clear example that the one who denies the Sunnah in its entirety and in detail is not like the one who denies a part of the Sunnah, either for an excuse, in which case there is no problem that he is not held accountable by the Lord of the Worlds, or for no excuse, such as ignorance, for example, or the like. This classification, although I did not like his expression of "severity," is a description, and I do not know if this quotation is by wording or by meaning?

The questioner : By wording.

The Shaykh : But I believe that the expression that there is a creed more important than another is a reality, as we explained earlier. So the answer is: distinguishing between one creed and another is a reality that cannot be refuted, first. Then the scholars of the Salaf distinguished; for example, they declared the Jahmiyyah disbelievers and announced their disbelief, and issued a fatwa to kill their leader. But they do not declare, for example, the Ibadis disbelievers, who deny seeing Allah in the Hereafter, nor the Mu'tazilah, who share in this misguidance with them, but they are content with declaring them misguided without declaring them disbelievers. This is, in my opinion, something that should not be debated in terms of classifying creed into important and more important. Take, for example, the discussion we touched upon recently, and this is perhaps suitable to be an example for my earlier statement that every ruling must be accompanied by a creed. What do we say about those who contradicted the saying of the Messenger: and said: No, that is not the case; there is a good innovation and a bad innovation, as we also explained yesterday regarding the hadith: If they believe contrary to this hadith, do we declare them disbelievers? No, we do not declare them disbelievers. So this is an example that can be for the minor creed, according to the expression of the one from whom I quoted that expression.