Saturday, May 02, 2015

Al-I’tiqaad (Belief) and Al-‘Amal (Actions)

(From the archives).
Verily Allah Ta’Aalaa has requested Imaan in matters and to have Tasdeeq (belief) in them, and He (swt) has requested to act in accordance to matters and to undertake them. So He (swt) said:
آَمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ
Believe in Allah and His Messenger
And He (swt) also said:
وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ
And establish the Salaah
So in respect to that which He (swt) has requested Imaan there is no place to talk about whether it is obligatory to act in accordance to it or not. This is because what is required is Imaan and not the action. It is because acting by it does not come in to the matter as the subject matter relates to Tasdeeq (belief) and unbelief whilst it does not relate to an action or not doing an action. As such, in regards to the Imaan in the Day of Judgement and the existence of Shayaateen and Jinn for example, discussion related to acting in accordance to it or not does not occur and has not been requested (or demanded). If there was then an action (related to these beliefs) then it does not represent acting in accordance to them but rather it only means acting in accordance to that which is built upon them (or resulting from them). This is like the Imaan in the Day of Judgement and Day of Account as fear of the punishment of Allah is built upon it and as such the person will leave acts of disobedience to Him Ta’Aalaa. As for the very thing or matter in which Imaan has been requested then the issue of acting by it is not its context and it is not the essence of the subject area.
In respect to the action and what has been requested then there is no place to discuss whether it is obligatory to have Imaan in it or not because what is required is to act by the matter and undertake it and not to have Imaan and Tasdeeq in it. The subject is therefore one of doing or not doing and it is not belief or absence of belief. So performing the Salaah, leaving carrion meat, undertaking trade and leaving Ribaa, spending upon children and being dutiful to the parents, for example, are all matters where discussion about whether the person believes in these Ahkaam or doesn’t believe in them does not come into it because this is not required (or demanded). Therefore issue of Imaan in the very Hukm is not its place and it is not the essence subject area in origin.
However it is obligatory here to bear in mind that the Imaan (belief) in the Hukm means I’tiqaad (believing) in its correctness and its truth in respect to solving )or treating) the problem whilst not having Imaan in it means I’tiqaad (belief) in its invalidity and that it is not true. This is what is meant by Imaan in respect to the very Hukm (or the Hukm itself). So whoever views for example that cutting the hand of the thief is an incorrect Hukm to treat the issue of theft and that imprisoning him is the correct Hukm then he does not believe in this Hukm. He does not deny that cutting the hand of the thief is a Hukm Shar’iy but he does not believe in its validity or that it is correct in respect to treating the problem. He is therefore not a Mu’min (believer) in this Hukm and indeed is a Kaafir (disbeliever) in it. As such he disbelieves (in Islaam) and becomes an apostate from Islaam.
As for the issue of the belief (I’tiqaad) that this Hukm is a Hukm Shar’iy then this does not relate to the Imaan but rather it relates to whether the Shar’a has come with it or not and is confirmed by the bringing of a Shar’iy text containing this Hukm (ruling) by which it is confirmed as being a Hukm Shar’iy. In respect to this the Ghalabat Azh-Zhann (preponderance) is sufficient; it is not related to the Imaan in the Ahkaam but rather is only related to taking the Ahkaam through their Shar’a consideration and by acting in accordance to them. So the discussion about whether something is a Hukm Shar’iy or not a Hukm Shar’iy has absolutely no relation to the Imaan but rather its relationship is with the action and nothing else.
As for the issue of I’tiqaad (belief) in that something is the Hukm of Allah (i.e. the only Hukm) and that other than it is not the Hukm of Allah then this relates to Allah (swt) and because it relates to Allah this makes it related to the Imaan. For this reason it is Haraam for it to be said in respect to a Hukm that this is the Hukm of Allah and that other than it is not the Hukm of Allah in the case where its Daleel is Zhanniy. This is because the Hukm of Allah is attributed to Allah as a Hukm and becomes from the Aqeedah. For that reason it is impermissible for it to be said that this Hukm is the Hukm of Allah unless its Daleel is Qat’iy (definite).
So everything that is connected to that which Imaan in it has been demanded is from the Aqaa’id (beliefs) whilst everything in which Imaan has not been demanded whilst action has been demanded in respect to it, is not considered to be from the Aqaa’id.

No comments: