Edit OmarKN
⎹
The differentiator is that whoever unambiguously denies an aspect of the Religion that is obligatorily known - e.g. denying the fact that praying five times a day is obligatory - is considered a disbeliever. One who does not consider the life in the grave a reality is a Muʿtazili, and/or Shiʿi, and/or belonging to one of the philosophical or other multifarious non-Sunni sects in Islam whose belief varies from bidʿa to kufr although on that very point they are considered Muslim.
The vast majority of the Scholars consider that sound (sahih) ahad hadiths are obligatory to practice and believe without the incurring of disbelief (kufr) but only sin (fisq) for whoever denies their validity, and the ruling of kufr applies only to mutawatir narrations such as the Qur'an and non-ahad hadiths. However, the collective weight of certain ahad hadiths whose *meaning* - short of their actual chains - has tawatur status, dictates that they be included in ʿaqida, this being the case of many of the narrations pertaining to the afterlife although those of the punishment in the grave are mutawatir.
Not only is there no sin in not believing 100% in the attribution of a daʿif hadith to the Prophet ﷺ , but it is a pre-condition for our use of the daʿif hadith that we should not positively attribute it to the Prophet ﷺ . Furthermore, daʿif can apply to the isnad; it can apply to the matn; and it can apply to both at once. We have to believe 100% and practice everything that comes to us from the Prophet ﷺ through tawatur such as the rulings of the Qur'an and those of mutawatir hadiths as well as the Consensus of the Companions. Whatever is not of that level has a different status.
Proving one's belief rationally or logically is a contradiction, as belief is by definition in what lies beyond the probative power of reason and logic. However, if you mean by "blind belief" ignorance of its proofs - or most of its proofs - in the Shariʿa, then that is the position of the "general public" (ʿawamm) of the Muslims and belief is not harmed by it, although it is probably incomplete or weak and definitely more vulnerable than the belief of the ʿAlim. Hence Allah Most High orders us to seek strong and discerning faith with the command { Know / Learn / Understand / Realize that there is no God except ALLAH} . Similarly the responsibility of the ʿAlim is greater and his sin weightier. May Allah forgive all and guide all.
This is impermissible and haram unless he is merely reporting the fatwa of a qualified scholar, which itself is allowed only on condition that he does so without changing the context or wording of what he is transmitting. Otherwise, "Whoever gives fatwa without knowledge, the angels of the heaven and the earth curse him" as reported from the Prophet ﷺ by Ibn ʿAsakir (al-Suyuti, Haba'ik p. 187 #694).
As ʿUmar said, such false muftis are the enemies of the Religion, misguided and misguiding, and their fatwas are null and void. And Ibn ʿUmar said: "Do not give any response except with the speaking Qur'an (biqur'anin natiqin) or a Sunna that has precedent (sunnatin madiya). If you do otherwise, you have perished and caused others to perish." By "the speaking Qur'an" he means unambiguous and unabrogated. And Hudhayfa said: "Other than an Imam [i.e. the Sultan] or a governor, or a man who can tell [i.e. through knowledge of the Sunna] the abrogating verses of the Qur'an from the abrogated, anyone who gives fatwa is an overreaching fool."
It varies from fisq to kufr, and our refuge is Allah Most High from the slips of the tongue and obduracy. Examples of bidʿa are the excesses committed by Ibn Hazm in his disparagement of the Ulema in his banned book al-Fisal wa al-Nihal; al-Mawdudi against the Ulema; Sayyid Qutb against the Ulema; etc. This bidʿa can become kufr when the Ulema as a whole are insulted, or compared to non-Muslims, such as in the statements: "What is this caste system of our Ulema?" or "The approach, methodology, and objectives of the Ulema have all now become invalid" - this is blatant kufr. Close to this also is the specific revilement of the Ashʿari and Maturidi Ulema - who form the massive majority of Ahl al-Sunna - in the books of al-Khajnadi, al-Albani, al-Tuwayjiri, al-Madkhali, and other Wahhabi / "Salafi" writers. The only exception is when the permitted discreditation of certain Ulema by the authorities has solid grounds in the Shariʿa, such as the Ulema's disparagement of Ibn Taymiyya and his followers in certain aspects of ʿaqida and fiqh, or the jarh of weak narrators, liars, and forgers in hadith. Detailed rulings that pertains to badmouthing the Ulema of Islam can be found in Damad Effendi's Majmaʿ al-Anhur (p. 695), Tahir al-Bukhari's Khulasat al-Fatawa printed with al-Lacknawi's Majmuʿat al-Fatawa (Lahore ed. vol. 3-4 p. 388) and other Hanafi manuals.
It is impermissible to say that the ʿaqida of Muslims today is different from that of the Sahaba but Ahl al-Sunna only admit mutawatir-rank evidence as a basis in defining Islamic ʿaqida. Only a handful of innovators such as Albani differed.
He is a fasiq who is committing a sin and should fear for the light of his faith to be extinguished by wrangling and disputation. One with simple ignorance i.e. with no knowledge is usually less far from admitting his error than one with compounded ignorance, i.e. with some knowledge. The latter may slide down from being a fasiq to being a mubtadiʿ.
Yes, because the Sunna is the guarantee that we understand the Qur'an correctly, not like those deviants who call themselves "Qur'an-only", or extremist Shiʿis who lie about the integrity of the Qur'an, or anthropomorphists, or philosophers, or modernists, all of whom do not understand the Qur'an because they have no knowledge of the Sunna. The Sunna is the "non-recited Revelation" (wahyun ghayr matluw) just as the Qur'an is the "recited Revelation" (wahyun matluw).
No. Al-Hamdu lillah, our ʿAqida is that of the Prophet ﷺ and the Congregation of the Companions without change, preserved until the end of time as Allah Most High has promised and as the Prophet ﷺ guaranteed.
Most of the Fuqaha' and Ahl al-Hadith say it from the time of the Salaf to ours with the exception of the likes of Ibn al-Qayyim and al-Albani. This does not mean that one is free to reject any and all lone-narrator reports as not binding! On the contrary, as we said, they are binding, but are not retained to define the ʿAqida of every Muslim for to deny any aspect of the latter is kufr whereas as we said the denial of any ahad hadith is only fisq.
Ibn ʿAbidin in his Rasa'il (2:291 Sall al-Husam al-Hindi) said that a Muslim who unjustly calls another Muslim kafir commits kufr if he really considers him kafir but not if he only intents to insult him. In the latter case he only commits fisq. We seek refuge in Allah from the accusations of the ignorant and the fitan of our times.
He is a Shiʿi and/or person of similar innovation and one should not pray behind him due to his belief that wiping over the khuffs is not a Sunna; however, there is no consensus that it is part of ʿaqida to believe in its Sunna character, hence Imam Abu Hanifa only said: "I FEAR disbelief (kufr) for one who denies it," i.e. it may lead him to kufr without consisting in kufr by itself. And Allah knows best.
ʿAqida is the general term for belief, of which tasdeeq is a part. But tasdeeq is not just "trusting": it means confirmation i.e. with the tongue. One definition of iman goes: "ʿaqd bil-qalb wa tasdiq bil-lisan wal-ʿamal bil-arkan" i.e. conviction in the heart; confirmation with the tongue; and deeds with the limbs. However, there is Consensus that the most essential part and the indispensable foundation of Islamic belief is conviction in the heart. Yet the latter is not sufficient to be considered a Muslim and confirmation must be added. Then confirmation becomes insufficient and deeds must join it. In this respect there is a difference between ʿaqd, tasdeeq, and ʿamal, all of which form belief. Similarly in the hadith of Gibril a difference is made between iman and islam although in a different context one never goes without the other.
Plenty of matters, although they are more properly called bidʿa which is worse than fisq. This is the case of the beliefs held by most of the seventy-two sects that are in the Fire. For example, not believing in the life of the grave; or not believing that our Prophet ﷺ is alive in his grave and returning our Salam [e.g. Albani]; or believing that Allah Most High is actually on top of the seventh heaven, sitting on a Throne although this may be kufr (cf. Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 5:129-130); or, as held by the Shiʿis that the Qur'an is created and that there is no such thing as the vision of Allah Most High in the Hereafter; or that for a Muslim to commit a grave sin is kufr; or that Allah is "like a king who is unable to contravene the law of his kingdom and needs a good reason to allow his minister to intercede for a thief" as in the chapter on intercession in the book Taqwiyat al-Iman; or that Prophets are "only human beings like you and me" and that their ʿIsma - immunity to sin - is sometimes suspended, as held by al-Mawdudi.
You mean "follow"; fallow means to leave earth unplanted after plowing. No to both questions. For example, Shafiʿis in Hajj routinely follow the other Schools in the matter of non-cancellation of wudu' upon skin contact with the other sex. However, one may not follow two different Schools inside one and the same type of worship, for example, if in the latter case a Shafiʿi does not renew his wudu' and decides to follow the Hanafi ruling in the matter, then has a nosebleed, he cannot then decide to follow the Shafiʿi ruling that his wudu' is still valid. One way or the other his wudu' is cancelled.
And Allah knows best.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©
Related texts
