The Allegations of Irjā Against Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله

Irjā’ is to believe that after accepting Imān with the heart and affirming it with the tongue, a Muslim will not be affected by any sin he commits. A person who holds such beliefs is known as a Murjī, and the sect is known as the Murji’ah sect.

What is Imān?

Imām At-Tahāwī رحمه الله mentions:

والإيمان: هو الإقرار باللسان، والتصديق بالجنان

Imān is affirmation with the tongue, and attestation with the heart [the tenants of faith].

He also mentions:

والإيمان واحد. وأهله فيه سواء والتفاضل بينهم بالخشية والتقى، ومخالفة الهوى

‘And Imān is one, and its beholders are all the same. Difference between them in superiority is due to their fear [of Allāh], taqwā, and suppressing [evil] desires.’

This is the belief of Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله  with regards to Imān, as Imām At-Tahāwī was a follower of Imām Abū Hanīfah.

In short, Imān is to believe in the Oneness of Allāh – as He is with all His Names and Attributes -; in the finality of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ; the books of Allāh; His Angels; His Messengers; in the Last Day; in resurrection after death, and in fate – the good and the bad – that it is from Allāh; together with accepting all His orders.

Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله’s Belief

Imām Abū Hanīfah believed that once a person’s heart attested to these beliefs, and his tongue affirmed them, he had Imān. This Imān was the same as the Imān of every other believer; it neither increased nor decreased. The believers only enjoyed superiority over one another on the basis of their taqwā (being conscious of Allāh), their fear of Him and their striving in His obedience. Therefore, the Prophet ﷺ and the Sahābah رضي الله عنهم, due to their excelling in these three aspects, enjoyed the greatest superiority from all other believers.

This means that if a believer was to commit a sin, his core beliefs and base Imān would still remain the same, however, it would dent his virtue. It does not mean that once a person had Imān, his doing good or committing evil would not benefit or harm him in any way, as clearly stated by Imām At-Tahāwī:

ولا نقول: لا يضر مع الإيمان ذنب لمن عمله

We do not say, “Committing a sin – whilst having Imān – is harmless to the perpetrator”…

There are numerous āyāt of the Qur’ān and ahādīth that point out that deeds, both good and bad, harm and benefit a person with Imān.

This is the stance of Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله and his followers on this issue. His evidences for this are well documented.

The First Dimension of Allegations of Irjā

The Murji’ah, a deviant sect, believed that the sins a person commits will have no effect on his outcome in the Hereafter as long as he has Imān, just like the good a person does in this world will not benefit him as long as he disbelieves.[1]

Some people, the likes of Shaykh Sālih bin Fawzān have mentioned that the belief stated in Al-‘Aqīdatut Tahāwīyah is incorrect, and is in fact the same as the beliefs of the Murji’ah.[2] However, this is incorrect, as is evident from the explanation of the belief that has been provided already.

Even before Sālih bin Fawzān, there have been people who have labelled Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله to be a Murjī (holding the beliefs of the Murji’ah). Imām Abdul-Hayy Al-Lakhnawī رحمه الله mentions in his Ar-Raf‘u wat-Takmīl (pg. 155) from Al-Milal wan-Nihal that Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله would oppose the Qadarīyah and the Mu‘tazilah (two deviant sects) who appeared in the early period, and the Mu‘tazilah would label all who opposed them with regards to beliefs as ‘Murjī’.

The Mu‘tazilah believed that the perpetrator of a major sin will be doomed eternally to the Hellfire, if he did not repent before passing away. It did not matter as to whether only one major sin was committed or many, and whether the person had good deeds to his name or not. Obviously, with Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله opposing this stance of theirs, and with his stance bearing somewhat of a resemblance to the beliefs of the Murji’ah, they labelled him a Murjī from which he was pure.

This is one dimension of labelling the Imām as a Murjī.

The Second Dimension

The second dimension to labelling Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله  a Murjī stems from a difference of opinion that occurred between two groups of scholars, with regards to the definition of Imān.

Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله and others opined that Imān was affirmation with the tongue and attestation with the heart of the things mentioned previously, as expounded by Imām At-Tahāwī رحمه الله:

والإيمان: هو الإقرار باللسان، والتصديق بالجنان

Imān is affirmation with the tongue, and attestation with the heart [the tenants of faith].

The other group – which included the Muhaddithūn – opined that together with affirmation with the tongue and attestation with the heart, the actions of the limbs of the body also came into the definition of Imān. Each group came to their conclusions based on evidences from the Qur’ān and the ahādīth, and there were stellar personalities on either side.

The latter scholars however, the likes of Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al-Hanafī رحمه الله, explained that this difference between the two groups was only a semantic and linguistic dispute, because both parties ultimately came to the same conclusions in matters of beliefs related to this matter. This difference therefore, did not lead to any disrepute in terms of beliefs on either side.[3]

For example, both believed that actions – whether good or bad – had an effect on a person, unlike the beliefs of the Murji’ah that sinning did not harm the sinner as long as he had Imān. Similarly, both believed that the perpetrator of a major sin did not leave the fold of Islām, unlike the Khawārij & Mu‘tazilah who believed that he did.

The difference between the two parties came down to the fact that Imām Abū Hanīfah believed that the base Imān was the same and did not increase nor decrease, but the actions that a person committed either strengthened the effect of the Imān or weakened it. On the other hand, the other group believed that actions were part of the definition of Imān itself, and that the actions of a person either increased or decreased the actual Imān that one had.

The group opposing the stance of Imām Abū Hanīfah رحمه الله  and his party included the Muhaddithūn, the likes of Imām Al-Bukhārī and others. As this dispute prolonged, one party began to label the other with Irjā’, although not in the sense of labelling them deviant like the true Murji’ah.[4]

[1] قال ابن أبي العز الحنفي في شرح العقيدة الطحاوية: رَدٌّ عَلَى الْمُرْجِئَةِ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ: لَا يَضُرُّ مَعَ الْإِيمَانِ ذَنْبٌ، كَمَا لَا يَنْفَعُ مَعَ الْكُفْرِ طَاعَةٌ

[2] قال صالح بن فوزان بن عبد الله القوزان في تعليقاته المختصرة على متن العقيدة الطحاوية: [قوله:] والإيمان واحد. وأهله فيه سواء: هذا غلط؛ لأن الإيمان ليس واحداً، وليس أهله سواء، بل الإيمان يتفاضل، ويزيد وينقص، إلا عند المرجئة.

[3] قال ابن أبي العز في شرح الطحاوية: وَالِاخْتِلَافُ الَّذِي بَيْنَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَالْأَئِمَّةِ الْبَاقِينَ مِنْ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ – اخْتِلَافٌ صُورِيٌّ. فَإِنَّ كَوْنَ أَعْمَالِ الْجَوَارِحِ لَازِمَةً لِإِيمَانِ الْقَلْبِ، أَوْ جُزْءًا مِنَ الْإِيمَانِ، مَعَ الِاتِّفَاقِ عَلَى أَنَّ مُرْتَكِبَ الْكَبِيرَةِ لَا يَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْإِيمَانِ، بَلْ هُوَ فِي مَشِيئَةِ اللَّهِ، إِنْ شَاءَ عَذَّبَهُ، وَإِنْ شَاءَ عَفَا عَنْهُ -: نِزَاعٌ لَفْظِيٌّ، لَا يَتَرَتَّبُ عَلَيْهِ فَسَادُ اعْتِقَادٍ…

[4] قاله العلامة عبد الحي اللكنوي رحمه الله في الرفع والتكميل: وَقد يُطلق على الائمة الْقَائِلين بَان الاعمال لَيست بداخلة فِي الايمان وبعدم الزِّيَادَة فِيهِ وَالنُّقْصَان وَهُوَ مَذْهَب ابي حنيفَة وأتباعه من جَانب الْمُحدثين الْقَائِلين بِالزِّيَادَةِ والتقصان وبدخول الاعمال فِي الايمان.

وَهَذَا النزاع وان كَانَ لفظيا كَمَا حَقَّقَهُ الْمُحَقِّقُونَ من الاولين والآخرين لكنه لما طَال وَآل الامر الى بسط كَلَام الْفَرِيقَيْنِ من الْمُتَقَدِّمين والمتأخرين ادى ذَلِك الى ان اطلقوا الارجاء على مخالفيهم وشنعوا بذلك عَلَيْهِم وَهُوَ لَيْسَ بطعن فِي الْحَقِيقَة على مَا لَا يخفى على مهرَة الشَّرِيعَة