The importance of actions with regards to Iman?
From the mutakalimeen / Ahnaf point of view, Iman is tasdeeq bi al-qalb (affirmation of the heart). Accordingly their view is that Iman is one entity (baseet) and does not have parts. They say that actions (a’mal) are fruits of Iman and are an apparent manifestation of it, not a part (juz) of it, as others have mentioned. They also hold the view that Iqrar bi al-lisan is a condition (shart), not a part (juz) of Iman.
It is mentioned in Ihyaa Uloom al-deen and in its commentary (Ithaf) by Imam Zabeedi that:
الإيمان هو التصديق بالقلب، وإقرار باللسان شرط لإجراء الأحكام
و العمل بالأركان نتيجة التصديق و ثمرة الإيمان
Iman is to affirm in ones heart. Iqrar bi al-lisan (confirmation with the tongue) is a condition for rulings to apply. Actions are a result of tasdeeq (affirmation of the heart) and are the fruits of Iman.
This is also the Hanafi point of view, that actions are a result of tasdeeq (affirmation of the heart). It may seem as though this is similar to the Murjia point of view that amal (actions) are not necessary.
According to one view, Imam Abu Hanifa makes Iqrar bi al-lisan (confirmation with the tongue) a rukn of Iman. This is also the view of Imam Tahawi.
On the other side the Jamhoor including Imam Malik and Imam Shafi say:
الإيمان تصديق بالجنان و إقرار باللسان و العمل بالأركان
Iman is to affirm in ones heart and to affirm with the tongue and actions with the limbs.
Shaykh Abu Talib Muhammad bin Ali in Quwwat al-Quloob, Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani (Allamah Zabeedi says this is not his opinion but rather has been added), and Abul Abbas Qawnawi in Sharh Aqeeda al-Tahawi have made claim that the Ahnaf are murjiah.
The jamhoor view may be interpreted to be similar to the view of the Khawarij and Mu’tazila that Amal (actions) are such an integral part of Iman that if you do not do it you are considered a kafir (the view of the khawarij) or are taken out of the fold of Iman (the view of the Mu’tazila – منزل بين منزلتين – that is neither muslim nor kafir but rather in between both).
The more correct and balanced view is that it is not correct to consider the Jamhoor as Khawarij and Mu’tazila nor is it correct to consider the Mutakalimeen / Ahnaf as Murjiah. Rather this is an ikhtilaaf of ta’beer i.e. the end result is that they all accept the same thing, but the way they have mentioned it is different.
There is no Ikhtilaaf between Jamhoor and Mutakalimeen with regards to Iman
How do we know that this is an ikhtilaf of semantics?
- All agree that person who commits a major sin will not be in hell eternally. Both sides agree with this therefore amal is not a juz haqeeqi of Iman.
- All agree that good actions and bad actions are not without effect, both have effects. The Mutakalimeen give amal importance like the muhaditheen.
- All agree that bad actions will be punished for and good actions will be rewarded.
- All agree (in certain scenarios) that only having tasdeeq can save you from being in hell eternally.
If a person does tasdeeq, has good actions and stays away from sins, all agree that they will be saved from the fire.
Imam Fakhruddin Razi, Imam Ghazali, Mulla Ali Qari, Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah all have said this ikhtilaaf between both groups is a mere ikhtilaf in wording.
Shaykhul Hind Mahmood al-Hasan says this ikhtilaaf has come about due to the conditions in eras of both respective groups:
In the era of the Mutakalimeen / Ahnaf the Mu’tazila and Khawarij were on the rise. So they took the view that actions are not a juz of Iman in refutation of these groups. The wording was eloquent in such a way that amal was included within the haqeeqah of Iman, and at this time it was the most appropriate way of approaching the subject.
On the other hand, in the era of the Muhaditheen, there were many Murjiah. The necessity of this time made it important to give amal significance, so likewise they put forward the definition of Iman in an eloquent way to show that amal is an integral part of Iman.
