Īmān and ʿAmal

The Importance of Actions with Regards to Īmān

From the Mutakallimūn / Aḥnāf point of view, īmān is taṣdīq bi al-qalb (affirmation of the heart). On this view īmān is one entity (basīṭ) and has no parts. Actions (aʿmāl), they hold, are the fruits of īmān and an outward manifestation of it, not a part (juzʾ) of it. They likewise hold that iqrār bi al-lisān is a condition (sharṭ) of īmān, not a part (juzʾ) of it.

In Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn and its commentary al-Itḥāf by Imām al-Zabīdī it is stated:

This is the Ḥanafī position as well: actions are a result of taṣdīq. At first glance, the position may seem close to that of the Murjiʾah, who hold that ʿamal is not necessary.

According to one report, Imām Abū Ḥanīfah counts iqrār bi al-lisān as a rukn of īmān; this is also the view of Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī.

The Jamhūr, including Imām Mālik and Imām al-Shāfiʿī, by contrast, hold:

Shaykh Abū Ṭālib Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Makkī in Quwwat al-Qulūb, Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (though ʿAllāmah al-Zabīdī notes that this view is not in fact al-Jīlānī's, but a later interpolation), and Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Qawnawī in Sharḥ ʿAqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah have all charged that the Aḥnāf are Murjiʾah.

The Jamhūr position, in turn, may appear close to the view of the Khawārij and Muʿtazilah, who hold that ʿamal is so integral to īmān that abandoning it places one outside the fold. The Khawārij hold that the major sinner becomes a kāfir; the Muʿtazilah hold that he occupies al-manzilah bayna al-manzilatayn, a position between belief and disbelief, neither Muslim nor kāfir.

The more correct and balanced view is that the Jamhūr should not be classed with the Khawārij and Muʿtazilah, nor should the Mutakallimūn / Aḥnāf be classed with the Murjiʾah. The disagreement is rather an ikhtilāf of taʿbīr, a difference in expression: each side accepts the same substantive truth, only the framing differs.

There is no Ikhtilāf between the Jamhūr and the Mutakallimūn regarding Īmān

How do we know the disagreement is one of expression rather than substance?

1. All agree that the person who commits a major sin will not be in Hell eternally, which means ʿamal is not a juzʾ ḥaqīqī of īmān.
2. All agree that good actions and bad actions are not without consequence; both have effects. The Mutakallimūn give ʿamal the same weight that the muḥaddithīn do.
3. All agree that bad actions will be punished and good actions rewarded.
4. All agree that, in certain cases, taṣdīq alone can save a person from eternity in Hell.

If a person has taṣdīq, performs good actions, and refrains from sin, all sides agree that he is saved from the Fire.

Imām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Imām al-Ghazālī, Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, and Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Taymiyyah have all held that the disagreement between the two groups is a mere ikhtilāf in wording.

Shaykh al-Hind Maḥmūd al-Ḥasan attributes the disagreement to the historical conditions of each group:

In the era of the Mutakallimūn / Aḥnāf, the Muʿtazilah and Khawārij were on the rise. The Mutakallimūn therefore held that actions are not a juzʾ of īmān, in refutation of those groups. Their wording was framed in such a way that ʿamal was included within the ḥaqīqah of īmān; at the time, this was the most appropriate way of approaching the question.

In the era of the muḥaddithīn, by contrast, the Murjiʾah were many. The needs of that period made it important to give ʿamal pride of place, and so the muḥaddithīn framed the definition of īmān to make ʿamal an integral part of it.