A person may now ask, "Which school of
belief is worse, the Murji'ah of the old or the Murji'ah of contemporary
times?"
It could be said in response that the Murji'ah
that came after are worse and more severe in their detachment of al-Emaan from
actions and statements. This is because the Murji'ah of old (such as the Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa) believed that
statements and actions are only an indication that a person has disbelieved,
yet despite this mistake, they did not abandon accountability for the person to
perform actions. They believed that a person who leaves actions or statements
of al-Emaan must be punished in the Dunyaa, however their error came on the
stance they had on this person in the Aakhirah (i.e. not declaring to be a
person of the fire). The later Murji'ah completely failed to hold the one who
abandons actions or statements to account. They aborted the labelling of
disbelief totally and as a result, eradicated the capital punishment that has
been specified for the apostate.
This is from one aspect, however in some
aspects the Murji'ah of old were worse than their later compatriots. The
earlier Murji'ah did not recognise actions to be part of the essence of
al-Emaan, therefore, the Murji'ah of old failed to recognise actions to be part
of the definition of al-Emaan, whereas the later Murji'ah did (such as coining the idea of 'Kamaal al-Emaan').
However, a person may ask, "Are we certain
that the the latter Murji'ah were mistaken in their understanding in all of
this or was is in an area where a difference of understanding is tolerated?"
We say in response that the evidences presented
are a proof against the modern day Murji'ah. These evidences are clear and
affirmed, in their meaning and their authenticity of their transmission. Even
had their been one piece of evidence from the Quraan or the Sunnah, which was
authentic in its meaning and transmission, this would suffice as a refutation
on the mistakes they have developed. So how grave is their error when we have a
multitude of authentic texts in meaning and in transmission that are proofs
against their mistakes?
No comments:
Post a Comment