From the forms of al-Irjaa is to define
al-Emaan as meaning belief in the heart alone, basing this definition on the linguistic
definition of the word al-Emaan. The Murji'ah argued that in the Arabic
language al-Emaan means belief.
For instance, Allaah, the Most High, uses the
word al-Emaan when Describing what Yoosuf's brothers said:
“but you will
never believe (i.e. mu’min) us even when we speak the truth” [Yoosuf 12: 17]
The word al-Emaan has been used in this Aayah
to mean belief and based on this linguistic definition, some of them even stated that there is linguistic scholarly consensus on the issue!
In response to this we say that if the word
Emaan appears with the preposition 'Baa' (ب),
then its linguistic definition does not mean belief alone and limiting it to
belief has no evidence, linguistically.
As for the general linguistic definition of the
word al-Emaan to mean ‘belief’, then this must be coined with the preposition 'Laam' ((ل, such as saying:
(آمن له)
As for it being coined with the preposition
'Baa' (ب),
such as
(آمن به)
Then in this instance it is not correct to say
that Emaan means belief.
Added to this grammatical error, the word
'belief' can linguistically apply to both whatever is witnessed and perceived
by our senses as well as whatever is from the realm of the unseen. However,
al-Emaan in the Islaamic sense is specific to belief in the unseen, as Allaah
the Most High Said:
“Who believe in
the Ghaib” [al-Baqarah 2:3]
Furthermore, belief is the opposite of lying
however belief in the context of the Sharee’ah is not the polar opposite of
lies, rather the opposite of al-Emaan is Kufr (disbelief). Based on this, if
one was to say, "I believe that the Prophet but I do not need to follow
him, I can even express hatred and enmity towards him", then this person
could never be considered as a believer.
Additionally as a refutation against them is
that even linguistically the word al-Emaan includes actions. For example,
someone may say, "I do not believe in the Resurrection". What this
means is that the person does not believe in it in his heart and will not
prepare for it via actions. In this example, it could be said that this person
does not believe in the Resurrection based on his actions alone. As he is not preparing for the Resurrection, thus disbelieving it through his actions. Similar to
Iblees, he does not believe in Allaah despite that fact that he knows that
Allaah exists and Lordship is only for Him.
For argument’s sake, even if we were to agree that
al-Emaan is defined as meaning belief, then one would also be bound to admit
that belief includes actions just as it appears in the Hadeeth,"The eyes
commit fornication (Zina) when they look at something not permitted for them to
look at" up until the wording in the Hadeeth, "…the private parts
affirm it or belie it (i.e. an action)."
Likewise, even if we took the linguistic definition of the word al-Emaan to mean belief, then there would be no objection
with doing the same with other Islaamically defined vocabulary found within the
Sharee'ah. For example, the word Salaah means Dua'a or praise, however the
Sharee'ah has specified its definition and added to it Rukoo (bowing) and
Sujood (prostration) and the recitation of the Quraan.
This is all needless to point out that al-Emaan
cannot be relegated to the linguistic definition of mere belief because of the presence of a multitude of textual evidences.
From them is the Hadeeth of 'Abdul-Qas, where
he narrated that the Prophet included actions and statements into the
definition of al-Emaan. He, the Prophet, said, "Do you know what it means
to have in Emaan in Allaah, alone? It means that one bears witness that there
is no god worthy of worship except Allaah and that Muhammad is his Messenger,
to establish the prayer, pay the Zakaat, to fast in Ramadhaan and to give a
fifth of war booty in charity."
This Hadeeth proves the corruption of such a
belief, that al-Emaan is relegated to mean mere belief alone. Here we ask, is
belief, according to them, sufficed if one recognizes that there is a god, or do we define belief as a testimony
one makes within themselves based on their belief? Some of the Murji'ah even
suggested that belief is defined as a state one is in when they reject any form
of arrogance towards religion and without necessarily knowing who Allaah is.
This exemplifies the inconsistency that the Murji'ah have in simply trying to
define what belief actually is.
If we were to presume that either one of these definitions truly defines belief, then we would be bound to relegate al-Emaan
to mean a belief that one has in the heart alone, which is an immoral presumption that most would reject. Those who have intellect will recognize that this is
all a result of philosophy and delving into theories in theology.
What is strange from all of this is that the
Murji'ah have a principle in which they affirm that all the wordings found
within the text of the Sharee’ah must be taken in their apparent. They state
that a meaning of a word can not be interpreted in a particular manner unless
there is evidence to suggest that the proposed definition is factual.
Contradictory, in the matter of al-Emaan,
they interpreted it to mean belief (Tasdeeq) without any supporting evidence,
rather the evidences oppose such a presumption. The texts prove that there is a
negation of al-Emaan for someone who does not love Allaah or His Messenger, or
a person who does not fear Allaah, or have a Taqwaa of Him or those who do not
do any righteous deeds at all. The texts support the belief that there exists a
correlation between al-Emaan and actions, and these are a plenty and clear.
If we were to be selective in the texts we use
in order to support the beliefs of the Murji'ah, then we would be guilty of
preferring the general evidences over what is specific to the topic, or even
misinterpreting what is clear and consistent (Mutawaatir) in their narrations.
