> Modernist and Progressives Are the Pinnicle of the Murjia Sect and Its Link to Modern Day Liberalism

[al-boriqee]

Discussing deviant beliefs of murjia sect and how murjia methodology is adopted by modernists to alter Islam and its links to modern day liberalism.

الحمد لله رب العالمين، وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على نبينا محمد وعلى آله
وصحبه أجمعي
وبعد
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركات

I want to start off by setting the precedent in order to somewhat highlight couple of the Islamic groups according to the Western outlook

In classical Islamic literature, there was a highlight in the books of heresiology of many groups that span throughout a variety of ideas that form a spectrum. The purpose of this specific post is not geared towards highlighting all of them or even a few of them, but merely one of them, and in the process I may reveal another one only to show the Islamic side of something that the west already has, yet in many ways different which will be explained

In order to continue, I would have to highlight the concept of "Irjaa" in Islam, that way, people can already have a fundamental map in their heads to go off of in future readings God Willing.

Irj’aa linguistically has been defined as hoping, postpone, delay which would denote procrastination or to adjourn.

Islamically this term was applied to a group from the Muslims in the issue of Uthmaan and Ali, radhiyallahu anhum, in which they did not take a side (in the issue) and so this denoted them as delaying on taking a position. So it was attributed to them that they had irj’aa on the issue. So those, as a group, were the first to become the murj’iah (those who had irj’aa)

In the shari’ah, irj’aa is a concept, a belief in of itself, which means that actions are not connected to emaan (faith). So for those who held this concept, then this meant for them that actions was completely severed and had absolutely nothing to do with emaan (faith) hence a faasiq (sinner), mujrim (criminal, wrongdoer) were equal and on par with the zaahid (abstemious), noble and righteous person. So this meant that the worst Muslim ever to exist in the ummah of Muhammad (salallahu alaihi wa salam) would be equal in faith with the best man after the prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam) who was Abu Bakr as-Sadeeq (radhiallahu anhu) due to the fact that such a group did not include works, actions, as part of faith.

The two basis that form the thought of irj’aa, or murjism, is to

• Separate the deeds of the limbs (actions), or the speech of the tongue, or both, from the realm of faith
• To hold that faith does not increase or decrease

the end result of the first idea is that when the performance of apostasy is done, then it is to not make takfir (excommunication from Islam) where takfir is necessitated, and this is the opposite of the khawaarij, who view any act as the act that warrants takfir

the end result of the second is in equating the righteous with the corrupt, and THIS view is the basis of the madhaab (school of thought) of the secular progressive world which is why I have finally decided to go forth with bringing this post out into the light and into the open.

There are differing levels of irj’aa from the original murjiah to the jahmiyyah who took irjaa further than the rest of the murjia and said that emaan (faith) is ONLY restricted and confined to knowledge of Allah (m’arifah) and so no one can become kaafir (disbeliever) except through ignorance of Allah. So from the words of Ibn Hazm al-Andaloosee in his refutation of the Jahmiyyah, he declared Jahm to be a kaafir and stated that based off of Jahm’s own words, since they (Jahm and his followers) were the most ignorant about Allah and had no knowledge about Him, he was therefore a kaafir in his own definition.

So in essence, Irj’aa was the idea of separating amaal (actions) of the limbs to be connected with emaan (faith) in the heart. The lightest off irj’aa was the declaration that emaan consist of faith in the heart and speech of the tongue, which is the position of Imaam Abu Haneefah, and is the only issue where he departed form the rest of the aimah in that it also consists of actions of the limbs.

Alamaah Saalih al-Fawzaan stated
The Murji’ah are of four types:

1: Those who say that eemaan is merely knowledge (ma’rifah), even if this is not accompanied by testification (tasdeeq).

This is the statement of the Jahmiyyah.

This is the most evil and the ugliest of statements. It is in fact disbelief (kufr) in Allah Azza wa Jall, because the mushrikoon from the early times, and Pharaoh (Firawn), and Haamaan and Qaaroon and (even) Iblees all acknowledged (the existence) of Allaah, Azza wa Jall, in their hearts. However because they did not state this on their tongues, nor testify to this in their hearts, nor act upon it with their limbs, then this knowledge did not benefit them.

2: Those who say that emaan is testification in the heart only.

This is the statement of the Ashaa’irah (the Ash’arees).

This is also a false statement since the disbelievers (kuffaar) testify in their hearts, they know that the Quraan is True and that the Messenger (sal Allaahu alaiyhi wa sallam) is True, and the Jews and Christians know that.

Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Jews and Christians) recognise him (Muhammad sal Allaahu alaihi wa sallam) as they recognise their sons; but verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it – [i.e. the qualities of Muhammad sal Allaahu alaihi wa sallam which are written in the Tawraat and the Injeel]. (Surah Al Baqarah: 146)

And they testify to it in their hearts.

Allaah Ta'aala says regarding the Mushrikoon: We know indeed the grief which their words cause you (O Muhammad sal Allaahu alaihi wa sallam); it is not you that they deny but it is the Ayaat of Allaah that the Dhaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) deny. (Surah Al An’aam: 33)

So these people did not state upon their tongues nor did they act with their limbs, yet they did testify in their hearts – so they did not become people of eemaan (mu’minoon).

3: The statement of those who are the direct opposite of the Ashaa’irah - and they are the Karaamiyah. Those who say that eemaan is statement on the tongue even if the person does not truly believe in his heart.

Without doubt, this is a false statement since the hypocrites (munaafiqoon) – those who are in the lowest depths of the Fire – say “We bear witness that laa ilaaha ill Allaah and that Muhammad rasool ullaah’ with their tongues and they act (accordingly) with their limbs, but they do not truly believe in that nor do they testify to it in their hearts.

This is just as Allaah Ta'aala says: When the hypocrites come to you (O Muhammad sal Allaahu alaihi wa sallam) they say: ‘We bear witness that you are indeed the Messenger of Allaah’. And Allaah knows that you are indeed His Messenger and Allaah bears witness that the hypocrites are liars indeed. They have made their oaths a screen (for their hypocrisy). In this way they hinder (men) from the Path of Allaah. Verily, evil is what they used to do. (Surah Al Munaafiqoon: 1-2)

And He says, Subhaanahu wa ta’aala: They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts. (Surah Al Fath: 11)

4: The statement of the murji’ah al fuqahaa, and they are the lightest of the groups in terms of irjaa’ - those who say that eemaan is belief (i’tiqaad) in the heart and statement upon the tongue, but action does not enter into it.

This is the statement of the Murji’ah al-Fuqahaa and this is a statement which is also incorrect since there is no emaan without action.” Masaa'il fil Eemaan p18, 19

So with all of this being stated, what is the belief of the Orthodox Sunni Muslim?

The Islamic belief concerning faith is that it has three INTEGRAL parts, and if there is deficiency in any one of them, then there is a deficiency in faith
Faith consist of

Stated by the Alamaah, al-Muhadith, the Muhaqiq Shaykh Abdul-Qaadr Arna’oot rahimahullah
“From the ‘aqeedah (beliefs) of the righteous predecessors is their saying: Eemaan is a saying of the tongue, an action by the limbs and a strong belief in the heart. Eemaan increases with obedience to Allaah and decreases with disobedience to Allaah.
So emaan in speech is of two types. 1. The speech of the heart and 2. Speech of the tongue
Emaan in action is of three types.
1. Actions of the heart
2. Actions of the tongue
3. Actions of the limbs.
Speech of the tongue this refers to the tongue's confirmation of what the heart contains. In other words the tongue professes what the heart contains. When a person says with his tongue; "I testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah, alone without any partners and I testify that Muhammad is His servant and messenger" then he is confirming what is in his heart. So note how the 'speech of the tongue' still relates to knowledge.
As for speech of the heart then This actually refers to the belief of the heart with respect to Allaah and the other pillars of emaan (such as the Angels, Books, Messengers, Qadr, the Last Day etc.). In other words it refers to the knowledge that the heart contains and its firm belief in this knowledge. So this would include Tawheed and its two categories of Ruboobiyyah and Asmaa was-Sifaat because both of these are related to knowledge.
As for emaan of action then the first category is action of the heart. This occurs through feelings of the heart such as love, submission, reliance, hope, fear etc. So the speech of the heart is knowledge and beliefs. So the action of the heart is from an emotional standpoint. Example of this is that one knows (with his heart) that Allah is one. This is emaan in speech of the heart. And you may find that same person hating the one who uttered speech that opposed this. This action of hating was the action of the heart.
Emaan of actions of the tongue refers to actions like dhikr, making istighfaar, and enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.
Emaan of actions of the limbs comprise of outward actions like performing all that is wajb and abstaining from that which is haraam.
Emaainn creases and decreases: Emaan increases with obedience to Allah and performing all the wajibaat, and superogatory, and increases through acts of righteousness, and emaan decreases through acts of disobedience to Allah and doing what is haraam and not performing all the obligatory duties.

The Scholastic Theologians On the Concept of Faith

Imaam Al-Laalikaa'ee (d. 418H) reports in his Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl is-Sunnah (5/958) that Abdur-Razzaaq (as-San'aanee) said:

"I met sixty two Shaikhs, amongst them were: Ma'mar, al-Awzaa'ee, ath-Thawree, al-Waleed bin Muhammad al-Qurashee, Yazeed ibn as-Saa'ib, Hammaad bin Salamah, Hammaad bin Zaid, Sufyaan bin Uyainah, Shu'ayb bin Harb, Wakee' bin al-Jarraah, Maalik bin Anas, Ibn Abee Laylaa, Isma'eel bin Ayyaash, al-Waleed ibn Muslim and those I have not named, all of them saying: "Faith consists of speech and action, it increases and decreases."

Another report coming from Imaam al-Lalikaa’ee is in his Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl is-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah (5/959) that Uqbah bin Alqamah said: "I asked al-Awzaa'ee about emaan, can it increase? He replied; 'Yes until it becomes like the mountains.' I said: Can it decrease? He said: 'Yes, even until nothing remains of it.'"


The Esteemed Imaam, al-Haafidh, Shaykhul-Islam Abu 'Ubaid al-Qaasim bin Sallaam has explained emaan below
In Kitaab al-Eemaan pgs. 28-29 explained:

And thus, faith is degrees and ranks, even if its people call it one name. Certainly it is a deed from the deed Allah subjected His servants with and made incumbent upon their limbs. He made its root in the heart’s cognition, then He made the speech a witness over it, then the deeds an attestation for it. And certainly, Allah gave every limb a deed that He did not give to the other. Thus the heart’s deed is the belief, the tongue’s deed is the statement, the hand’s deed is the receiving, the leg’s deed is the walking, and the name “faith” sums all of them up. Thus faith, according to this understanding, certainly all of it is built upon the deed, from its beginning to its end, except that it contends for precedence in degrees according to what we described.

The one who opposed us [i.e., the Murji'ah] claimed that the statement is without the deed. So according to us, this is contradictory because if he made it [i.e., faith] statement then he has affirmed that it is deed and he is not aware of what I informed you of from the imaginary cause in naming the doings of the limbs as a deed with the Arabs. [Kitaabul-Emaan wa Ma'alimah]

Imaam ash-Shafi’ee says as reported by Shaykhul-Islam Ibnu-Taymiyyah

"The consensus of the Companions, and the tabi'een, and whoever was after them, and whom so ever we saw [regarding imaan], was: 'al-Imaan is speech, actions and intention, and one cannot exist ( yatajaza`), except with the others’[1].

Imaam Muhammed bin 'Abdul-Wahaab's definition is as follows:

"There is no difference - in opinion - regarding tawheed to be in the heart, and tongue and actions. And if one of these does not exist (akhtala), then this person cannot be a Muslim; and if he knows at-tawheed, and does not act upon it, then he is someone who has the disbelief of obstinacy ( kaafir mu'aanid), like the disbelief of Fir'awn, Iblees and their likes."[2]

Shaykh al-Islaam mentions the saying of Sahl bin 'Abdullah at-Tusatri regarding "Imaan, what is it? So he said:

'Speech, and actions and intention and sunnah; if Imaan is speech without actions, then it is kufr, and if it were speech and action without intention, then it is nifaaq (hypocrisy), and if it were speech, actions and intentions without sunnah, then it is bid'ah' (religious innovation)"[3]


So now, what does this have to do with the Modernist and progressive cult. The very basis of the modernist and progressive cult stems from the claim that they usually say which is exemplified that
"anyone can remain a muslim without beleiving or performing these practices" and then they list those practices that they find problematic.

The Institutions of Islam that Modernist progressives would like to Destroy
1. They would like to eradicate the concept of loving and hating for the sake of Allah. This is based on their ideological concept that was engrained in western thought that all man are equal which stems from their concept of equality is has many erroneous ramifications which has been discussed elsewhere on the forum. That is because loving what God loves and hating what He hates entails hating the people of evil and loving the people of justice whereas the western concept is built on equalizing the two as the same
2. the Womens Hijaab: They claim it is not a part of FAITH (i.e. irj'aa) for a muslim women to uncover herself. In other words, uncovering will NOT have an effect on her faith, which is the very irj'aa that the whole of the Islamic nation fought in the first couple centuries of Islam.
3. The Implementation of the Shariah: They claim that this is not integral to the Muslim belief which is contrary to the viewpoint of Allah who stated

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

And whoever judges by other than what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers
and in the next ayah it says "such are the wrongdoers"

So here we see that not ruling by Gods law DOES have an impact to faith whether the modernist and progressives like it or not.



The Modernist/Progressive School and Its Relation to Western Liberalism

In the western framework, they have a political or social spectrum that they coin as the left and it spans all the way to the right. The Leftist ideology spans from light to extreme and this leftist ideology has been called Liberalism and the right wing ideology as well ranges from light to extreme viewpoints which is classified as conservatism. I must note here, I am speaking from the American political framework as in various countries, this classification is quite different, sometimes opposite of each other, so the base reference here as a similitude is the American political structure.

To bridge the gap of understanding, Islam has something like this yet alien to the American experience. In Islam, the group that mostly resembles the extremist right wing groups are called the "Khawaarij" and this group does not exist as an actual entity, rather the group only exist in a thought process among Muslim groups who can be correctly labeled as "Khawaarij". I guess you can say that they are the right wing of the Muslims. However, on the left wing of the Muslims, the opposite side of the spectrum is being ran by the modernist and the progressives which is the Islamic style of American Leftist Liberalism.

So where do Muslims stand in all of this. They stand in the middle, as Allah almighty told us
"And like that We made you a balanced nation (Ummatun wasata)"

This attribute of "wasata" has been explained by many scholars. From among the many deductions is that the Muslim himself is balanced in every single aspect of the entire human experience. Likewise, from the attribute of wasata IS NOT ALWAYS TO STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB between two opposing views. Rather, the adl, the balance of the Muslim is to find the correctness of a matter, the bottom line truth as they say, and stick with it, whether it is extreme or lenient. However, overall, the basic behavioral pattern of a Muslim is to adopt ease generally and to resort to harshness when the situation requires for him to be tough" That is because the Messenger of Allah stated in a Hadeeth
"The fact of the matter is that Allah is Gentle (Rafeequn), and He loves Gentleness: And He gives to gentleness what He does not give to roughness"


Now that I have laid the groundwork for this project, God Willing, I will bring passages from Modernist and progressives as an example of Irjaa from the Islamic viewpoint.


[1] 'Majmoo' al-Fatawaa , volume 7/309

[2] Kashf ash-Shubuhaat , page 40.

[3] al-Imaan , page 172.